SUMITA ALIAS MANTO Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though petitioner had served her detention period, but her counsel still wants a verdict on the validity of her detention order, perhaps to come out of its fall-out.

(2.) Petitioner was first arrested under Sections 21 of NDPS Act on 17.9.2001 after having been allegedly found in possession of 500 gms. of smack. He was eventually detained by order dated 4.1.2002 under Section 3(1) of PIT-NDPS Act to prevent her from engaging in possession and transportation of narcotics drugs in future. The detention order was served on her on 31.1.2002 alongwith grounds of detention. She made representation against it to the Advisory Board and the detaining authority which was rejected by order dated 21.3.2002. Her detention was lastly confirmed by order dated 9.4.2002 which is now under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Though petitioner has challenged the order on several grounds, her counsel has pressed in service only one ground, i.e., that there was not cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which any inference or satisfaction could be drawn that there was a likelihood of her being released on bail and of her engaging in prejudicial activity. As such there was no compelling necessity for her detention as she was already in jail and that the Detaining Authority's decision to detain her all the same suffered from non-application of mind to that extent.