JAIKUMAR RAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Habeas Corpus Petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since the detenu concerned had arrived at the Madras International Airport by the same flight and were found in possession of gold concealed in their chappals. Further, the ground urged is identical.

(2.) JAI Kumar, petitioner in H.C.P. No. 351 of 1994 is the husband of Blaisylda, who has been preventively detained, in pursuance of an order dated 21.9.1993 passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(l)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) (Central Act 52 of 1974) with a view to preventing the detenu from indulging in smuggling goods.

(3.) MR . B. Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in each one of these Habeas Corpus Petitions, submitted that along with the grounds of detention, detenue were supplied with a truncated gist of the bail order, while in pursuance of the representations pleading for supply of full text of the bail orders, they were so supplied. The full and complete bail order contains so much of vital material, which could have affected the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority either way and such vital information had not been placed before the Detaining Authority, while he was engaged in the process of arriving at his subjective satisfaction. He submitted that recently, the Supreme Court has held in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India (1992 SCC (Crl.) 1) that in cases where bail stood ordered in favour of an individual, the bail petition and bail order were vital and relevant material, which must have been placed before the Detaining Authority, while a proposal was placed before him to detain the said individual preventively.