JASBIR KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Criminal Writ Petition No. 2358 of 1988 Shrimati Jasbir Kaur wife of detenu Jasbir Singh Virdi has challenged the detention of her husband aforesaid under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sustances Act, 1988, vide order Annexure P-1 based on grounds of detention. Annexure P-2 with effect from 31-10-1988 on the grounds hat the factum pf detenu being already on interim bail with effect from 29-8-1988 was not adverted to by the detaining authority therein or even conside, ed ; that through the same order dated 29-8-1988 passport of the petitioner's husband having been seized, the detenu could not indulge in pre­judicial activities any further and as such there was no justifiable ground for making the order of preventive detention against him and that for the occur­rence of September 1987 provisions of the Act enforced on 4-7-1988 could net be involved by the detaining authority retrospectively.

(2.) IN reply it was asserted that cause of action having not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the criminal writ filed by the detenu's wife; that the factum of detenu being on interim anticipatory bail was duly considered by the detaining authority; that the detaining authority on its subjective satisfaction felt that in spite of it and the seizure of the detentu's passport it was still necessary to order preventive detention of the detenu and that the order Annexure P-l was passed by the detaining authority on due application of mind. Hence, the writ merits dismissal.

(3.) A reference to the order of detention Annexure P-l clearly establishes that the factura of the detenu having been enlarged on interim anticipatory bail with effect from 29-8-1988 was not taken notice of or adverted to by the detaining authority therein. In similar circumstances in Anam Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1987 SC 137, where in their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: