MANU KHOSLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for a declaration that the detention order made against him (which has not been produced along with these writ proceedings) is void and unenforceable.

(2.) THE facts necessary to dispose of the petition are that one Anil Kumar was intercepted by Department of Revenue Officers on search on 15.04.2013. He was found to be in possession of 275 kgs of narcotics and psychotropic substances; a statement under Section 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) led to the arrest of the petitioner on 16.04.2013. His statement too was recorded on the date of his arrest i.e. 16.04.2013. Another arrest of one Amit Kumar Singh was made on 02.05.2013 and is alleged that some 950 kgs of banned substances were recovered from his car. The petitioner as well as Amit Kumar Singh were enlarged on bail by the Special Judge, NDPS on 20.07.2013. It is the allegation that he fully cooperated with the investigation and appeared before the DRI and other investigative agencies as and when called upon to do so. In these circumstances, the DRI applied for cancellation of his bail on 20.11.2013. The Special Judge, however, rejected the said application. This Court was approached thereafter by the investigating authorities. On 23.09.2014, the move for cancellation of bail succeeded when this Court granted the DRIs request.

(3.) IT is contended by Mr. Bagai that this Court having regard to the overall circumstances, especially the non -confirmation of the detention order of M/s. Anil Kumar and Amit Kumar Singh, should call for the records from the respondents and proceed to quash the unexecuted detention order. It is contended, firstly, that so far as bail cancellation by this Court is concerned, the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, which is pending - and the matter is sub judice in that case. It is, secondly, urged that this Court's power under Article 226 is not circumscribed as by the fact whether a preventive detention order otherwise legally unsustainable is served or not. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, : (2008) 16 SCC 14. Learned counsel highlighted that the decision in Deepak Bajaj (supra) had clarified and explained the previous ruling in Union of India v. Alka Subhash Gadia, : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 496. In Alka Gadia (supra), the Supreme Court has spelt out five circumstances under which even at the pre -execution stage, discretion can be exercised to examine the legality of detention orders.