DINESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was first arrested on 24.4.2001 for offences under PITNDPS Act. he was later detained by order dated 14.8.2001 passed u/s 3(1) of the Act to prevent him from engaging in possession and transportation of narcotic drugs in future. The order was served on him on 13.9.2001 against which he made a representation. His case was referred to Advisory Board on 1 10.2001 and his representation rejected on 6.11.2001 and detention order confirmed on 22.11.2001

(2.) Petitioner challenges his detention on several grounds - (i) that there was no compelling necessity for his detention. Because though detaining authority had shown awareness of his being in custody, yet he had no cogent material before him to derive satisfaction that there was a likelihood of his being released on bail, (ii) that some documents were not supplied to him within first 5 days of his detention in the language known to him nor were contents explained to him in his language, (iii) that sponsoring authority had suppressed some material like letter dated 27.4 2001 issued by SHO from the detaining authority which could have a bearing on his decision to pass the order or otherwise, and (iv) that the detention order was mala fide and suffered from non-application of mind and the grounds were also vague and so on.

(3.) L/C for petitioner Mr. Sunil Mehta has pressed in service the first ground only. No other ground was canvassed before us by him. He submitted that petitioner had not even moved any bail application and the question of any likelihood of his being released on bail did not arise Moreover, the stringent provisions of Section 37 made it well neigh impossible to obtain bail and as such there was no material before the detaining authority on the basis of which satisfaction could be drawn that there was a likelihood of petitioner being granted bail and thus a consequential compelling necessity to detain him. He has relied upon several judgments of Supreme Court including Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbhad, Bihar, AIR 1986 SC 2090, Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union, of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196, Amritlal v. Union Government, AIR 2000 SC 3675 and two DB judgments of this court in Sanjay Rajender Sharma v. Union of India in CrI.W. 1204/99 : 2000 (55) DRJ 660(DB) and Jagdish Chander Sharma v. Union of India, 2000 CrI.L.J. 3162: 2000 (56) DRJ (SuppI) 206(DB) to show that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority to draw the inference that there was a likelihood of the detenu who was already in custody being released on bail. He also cited Intelligence Officer, Narcotics C. Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar, 2001 CrI.LJ. 1082,Union of India v. Aharwa Deen 2000, CrI.LJ. 3526, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad, 2001 CrI.LJ. 4240 to show that stringent conditions of Section 37 of the Act made it otherwise impossible for the accused to be enlarged on bail.