ANKUSH BAMBIASINGH INDREKAR Vs. C D SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 10th April 1995 passed by the Secretary (Preventive Detention), Home Department and Detaining Authority, Government of Maharashtra, under the provisions of section 3(1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). The order was served on the petitioner and the petitioner was, in fact, detained on 21st April 1995.

(2.) THE grounds supplied alongwith the order of detention reveal that upon specific information, officers of Customs Preventive, Headquarters, Pune intercepted a fiat car on 11.11.1994 and upon the examination of the fiat car, 48.200 K.grams of charas valued at Rs. 14,46,000/ packed in polythene bags and kept in three suit cases was recovered from the car. Upon the personal search of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.2,500.00 was recovered. The statement of the petitioner was recorded on 12.11.1994. The petitioner admitted the recovery of charas from his possession. He also stated that he was dealing in the sale of narcotic drugs like "ganja", "charas" and opium for the last 14 years. He stated that a party from Bombay had approached him two months back for purchasing charas of 50 kgs. and the said consignment was to be delivered on the date of the recovery. The petitioner further stated that his wife being aware of his dealing in narcotic drugs, had admitted the children in the hostel of Shri Shivaji Preparatory Military School. The petitioner in his statement further stated that after settling down in the business, suppliers from Hyderabad and Kulu Manali started approaching him for the supply of ganja/charas and he was purchasing 15-20 kgs. of "ganja" and one to two kgs. of "charas" every week and selling the same on retail in small packets. The statement of the wife of the petitioner was also recorded wherein she also revealed involvement of her husband in illicit business of these prohibited drugs. The grounds further show that the petitioner was arrested on 12.11.1994. He was produced before the JMFC, Pune, and was from time to time remanded to judicial custody. On 12.12.1994 the petitioner applied for bail to the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Pune rejected the application for bail by order dated 20.2.1995 observing that the petitioner had mis-used the bail granted in a previous case. The detaining authority, ultimately, recorded his satisfaction that the petitioner is a habitual dealer in narcotic drugs and he is making a living from it.

(3.) MR . Shah contended that inasmuch as the petitioner's application for bail was rejected and inasmuch as the petitioner was in custody and had not again applied for bail, the detaining authority could not have legitimately formed a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was imminently likely to be released on bail and, as such, the order of detention is unlawful as no compelling necessity to detain the petitioner is revealed either in the grounds supplied to him or any other material on record. Mr.Desai, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Mahrashtra and the detaining authority and Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, on the other hand, contended that there is lot of material on record to show that the detaining authority could have legitimately formed the subjective satisfaction that the petitioner could have been released on bail. They contended that although no specific assertion in that behalf is made in the grounds such assertion is made in the affidavit filed in reply to this petition. With specific reference to the order of the learned Judge rejecting the bail application, it was contended that the facts narrated in the judgment and order rejecting the application for bail clearly show that on earlier two occasions when even a larger quantity was possessed by the petitioner, still he was released on bail and despite being released on bail on two earlier occasions, he has again indulged into the very same drug trafficking. Some other part of the judgment was relied upon to show that as a matter of fact, the learned Judge was impressed by one of the submissions on the issue of illegal detention of the petitioner for more than 24 hours prior to his production before the learned Magistrate. Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.Desai, learned Public Prosecutor, brought to our notice several authorities of the apex Court as also Division Benches of this Court in support of their rival contentions.