TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Origin, but later acquired British Nationality. He is residing abroad since 1974 and had come to India on 18th May, 1974 on learning of the registration of three offences falling under the Customs Act against him. These three cases may be labelled as, (i) Defence Stores case, (ii) Singapore Airlines case, and (iii) Parker case. On applications moved by him for bail, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, directed him to furnish security. The security having been furnished Sayed Ahmed was at liberty. He was permitted to go aborad and stay away from India, so that he could look after his interests elsewhere. Later on the trial of the Defence Stores case came to be stayed upon an application moved by an alleged co-accused of Sayed Ahmed. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sponse to the Order of detention, the said order cannot be questioned by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Canteenwala for the Petitioner impugned this objection by canvassing two grounds. First, learned Counsel submits that the tie of kinship between the petitioner and the detenu-designate gives the former the locus to challenge the detention order. The detenu-designate being a full brother of the petitioner, the latter has a right to his company in this country which would be possible only if no impediment is placed in the path of Sayed Ahmed to come to and stay in India. Next, it is said that having regard to the issue of a proclamation under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act, the petitioner s personal interests are in Je ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim the contrary in the affidavit-in-reply submitted by him. If Sayed Ahmed had obtained leave from this Court to extend his stay, abroad by a period of six months as from 8th July 1986, there was hardly any propriety in passing an order of detention on 10th July 1986. This apart, when Sayed Ahmed was prevented from coming to India to stand trial by the Simple device of not being given a Visa, there was hardly any justification for making an order of detention. It is well settled that the object of an order of preventive detention is to prevent the intending detenu from indulging in prejudicial activities. The object is not to deter any one from coming to the country, so as to be in a position to indulge in prejudicial activities. Here the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
