STTA RAM SOMANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) Sitaram Somani is under detention pursuant to an order dated June 4, 1985 made by the State of Rajasthan under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Earlier, on 1st January, 1985, the officers of the Customs Department recovered eight foreign gold biscuits from Om Parkash Soni and immediately thereafter searched the residence of Sitaram Somani and recovered thirty six foreign gold biscuits from a steel case in an almirah in the house. 12,100 US dollars were also recovered. A statement was recorded from Sitaram Somani. Sitaram Somani and Om Prakash were arrested and produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 2nd January, 1985. Bail was refused by the Magistrate. But thereafter on applications made by the two accused persons, the High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to both of them subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the two accused should not leave India without the permission of the, learned Sessions Judge. The passports of the accused had already been seized by the Customs Department. The accused were at large from January 19, 1985 till June 4, 1985, when they were arrested under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act. Sitaram Somani moved the High Court of Rajasthan under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The application was rejected by the High Court and the present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Sitaram Somani has also filed criminal writ petition No. 1475 of 1985 in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The appeal and the writ petition have been heard altogether.

(3.) One of the principal points taken in the High Court and repeated before us was that there was no application of mind by the detaining authority as certain vital facts were not brought to the attention of the detaining authority and were, therefore, not taken into consideration by that authority. The ground raised by the appellant in the High Court in his own words is as follows.