Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1990 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1990 (7) TMI 253 - SC - Indian LawsWhether a detention order is to be passed or not in case of a person who was already in custody? Held that:- The detaining authority was also conscious of the fact that the two other detenus who were arrested and detained in the same raid had already been released on bail. The antecedents of the detenu which were clear from his own statement went to show that he was initiated in drug trafficking in 1984 and employed as a delivery boy on ₹ 30/- per day and within a short span of four years the detenu himself started buying and selling Narcotic Drugs and amassed huge movable and immovable properties in Bombay. In the present raid itself heroin and Mandrax tablets worth ₹ 1,13,42,000/- were seized from the ownership and possession of the detenu. Not only that the detenu was using three vehicles for transportation of these Narcotic drugs. The detaining authority after taking into consideration the above materials placed before him, arrived to the conclusion that the detenu being in judicial custody may under the normal law of the land be granted bail and be in a position to continue to pursue his nefarious activities. The detaining authority in these circumstances considered it necessary to invoke the law of preventive detention under the Act to prevent the detenu from indulging in his prejudicial activities in future. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the order of detention was illegal on the ground that it was passed while the detenu was already in custody. The present detenu cannot take advantage of any orders passed by the High Court declaring the detention orders of Rai Chand Shah and Jai Lal K. Vora as illegal. In the facts and circumstances of this case we are fully satisfied that the detenu has not been denied any opportunity of making any effective representation against the declaration issued under Sec. 10(1) of Act As the delay has been explained by the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Thus we find no force in this ground of the detenu that his representations were disposed of after an inordinate and unexplained delay. Appeal dismissed.
|