DATARAM SHANTARAM BAGKAR Vs. GOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition prays for a writ of habeas corpus for the release of Vasant Shantaram Bagkar from detention and for an appropriate writ or order for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 26th December, 1986 (exhibit P-I to the petition).

(2.) The petitioner is the brother of Vasant Shaotaram Bagkar (for short the detenu) who has been detained in Central Jail, Aguada, since 5th January, 1987, pursuant to an order bearing No. 14/25/86-HD(G) dated 26th December, 1986, made by the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the COFEPOSA Act) with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods.

(3.) Several challenges have been made in this petition to the aforesaid order of detention for getting the detenu released. But, however, the learned counsel Mr. Dessai appearing for the petitioner bas restricted challenge to ground No- (i) of Para 5 of the petition. In that the ground is that the detention order is, void ab initio on account of non-application of mind by the detaining authority, which is a condition precedent to the exercise of the powers under section 3 of the Act. 10 support of this challenge, reliance is placed on paras 16 and 17 of the grounds on which die detention is based and which were pan passu served on the detenu along with the order of detention. Grounds 16 and 17 read thus: 16. I have considered your anticipatory bail application and the Court's orders thereon. I am also aware of your arrest and your subsequent release on bait. 17. I have also considered the anticipatory bail application of Shri Anil alias Shrikant Sukhanand Halornkar and the Court's orders thereon. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in fact, there arose no occasion for the petitioner to have filed any anticipatory bail application before any Court nor an occasion arose for the court to make any order thereof. It is, therefore, contended that the detaining authority has placed reliance on extraneous matter namely, the anticipatory bail application and its rejection and thereby the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has impaired and, therefore, the impugned order is vitiated.