AMAR SANG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was placed under detention on 21st November, 1988, pursuant to an order of detention passed on 6th July, 1988 by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, in exercise of the power conferred on him by S.3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), challenges her detention before this Court, by writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, order or direction, ordering her release from the said detention.

(2.) The facts, in so far as they are relevant to the present petition, are that the petitioner was intercepted at IGI Airport, New Delhi on the night intervening 21-22/8/1987 while she was leaving for Barcelona having booked for the flight No. AZ-787, and 4 kgs. of heroin was allegedly recovered from her baggage. The petitioner as well as her sister Prakash Beasley and three others were apprehended, and their statements were recorded. The petitioner was placed under arrest on 22nd Aug., 1987. While she was in judicial custody, a petition for interim bail was moved on her behalf, which came up before this Court on 3rd June, 1988 and in view of the medical report, it was thought to be a fit case to allow interim bail for three months from the date of her release from custody putting her on condition that she shall not leave India during the period of interim bail and shall furnish to the office of the Narcotics Control Bureau (for short NCB), her address where she would be residing during the period of her interim bail. When she was on interim bail, the Ordinance was promulgated on 4th July, 1988 and as stated above, the detention order was passed under S.3(1) of the said Ordinance on 6th July, 1988.

(3.) The detention order is challenged in this writ petition on a number of grounds but Mr. R.D. Mehra, arguing for the petitioner, pressed one ground only which has been taken up as ground No. V in the writ petition. He argued that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was available in Delhi, to the knowledge of the officers of the NCB, no steps were taken to execute the order of detention, and that there was long unexplained delay in execution of the said detention order inasmuch as it was only on 21st Nov., 1988 that the petitioner was put under detention in execution of the detention order dt. 6th July, 1988. Mr. Mehra has further submitted that during all this period, the petitioner was in Delhi, and that she had been attending Court of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate where in the meantime a complaint under S.135 of the Customs Act and various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act had been filed and that her presence had been noted as being on interim bail, when Counsel for the NCB also used to be present, and that all this was during the period this detention order remained unexecuted. He further stated that in view of the continued ailment from which the petitioner was suffering, a petition for extension of interim bail was moved in the High Court and that was taken up after notice to the NCB, by M.K. Chawla, J., and disposed of vide order dt. 29th Aug., 1988 when considering the medical ground, the interim bail was extended for another three months on the same terms and conditions, and that this order was passed in the presence of counsel for the NCB, namely, Shri J.S. Arora.