PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the COFEPOSA Act") by an order dated 23-1-1992 of the State Government of U.P. The petitioner challenged his detention by this Habeas Corpus petition.

(2.) The circumstances alleged in the grounds of detention were that at about 2.00 p.m. on 29-8-1991, the Custom Officers apprehended the petitioner, who was coming on a Yakka from the side of Gulariya Bazar (Nepal), near Mithi Purwa, Behraich. On interrogation, the petitioner informed his name. On search of his person in presence of two witnesses, six gold biscuits, one gold Guinea, Rs. 350.00 in Indian Currency and two China made locks were recovered from him. The gold biscuits were found to be of 24 carrat purity and Guinea of 22 carrat purity. Their value was assessed at Rs. 2,16,000/and Rs. 2,000/- respectively. As the petitioner did not possess any valid permit or custom receipt for bringing into Indian border the foreign gold, a recovery memo in respect of the recovered articles was prepared and the goods were seized. The Custom Officer recorded his statement on the same the petitioner is said to have admitted that he had gone to Kathmandu on 27-1-1992 where he was introduced to a Nepal citizen by one Ram Bharose from where he had purchased the foreign gold and was taking it to Bareilly. He also disclosed that he was going to deliver the said gold to the person holding Telephone No. 74715 and to Krishna Murari of Saraf Bazar. The petitioner had also stated that he arranged the money for purchase of gold, by selling all his articles in a grocery shop and that he had indulged in this smuggling activities for the last three to four years. A chit bearing two Telephone Nos. PLP 507 and PLP 508 of the residence and the shop of Puttu Lal of Palia was recovered from his possession. It was disclosed by the petitioner that Puttu Lal was his father-in-law, but he had no connection with the recovered gold. The detaining authority has mentioned in the grounds that since at the relevant time of passing of the detention order the petitioner was confined in jail, who was making efforts to be released on bail and since it was possible that bail may be granted to him and he may be released thereafter and again involved himself in smuggling activities, hence with a view to prevent him from indulging in such activities and also in transporting and concealing the smuggled goods the Government considered it expedient to pass the order of detention against the petitioner.

(3.) In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his detention on two grounds : firstly that even though the detention order states that the petitioner at the relevant time was making efforts to be released from jail on bail and there was every possibility of his bail being allowed, but in fact the bail had been granted to the petitioner by the High Court on 10-1-1992. The detaining authority was not aware of this fact. On the other hand, in the grounds of detention dated 23-1-1992 the detaining authority had stated that the petitioner was trying to get the bail and the possibility of his bail application being allowed was there. It was urged that this ground was totally meaningless in view of the fact that the petitioner had been granted bail earlier.