TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... du under S.3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the COFEPOSA with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods in future. The aforesaid order was modified in terms of GO No. SR 1/1155-21/2001 dated 9-4-2002. The necessity to modify the order dated 23-10-2001 arose on account of the surrender of the petitioner befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the bail bond and the sureties the petitioner was released on bail. On 3-4-2002, however, the brother of the petitioner who was one of the sureties, withdrew his surety, the petitioner did not give alternative surety and was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The modified order of detention was served on the petitioner while in custody. Various grounds have been pleaded to challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution would become inconsequential. 3. In the present case, as already noticed, the detention order was executed on 9-4-2002. It was passed on 23-10-2001 and modified on 9-4-2002. Earlier to 23-10-2001, the petitioner had been released on bail in terms of the order of the High Court dated 30-8-2001. The respondent State of Tamil Nadu, in the counter - affidavit, filed by its Deputy Secretary, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was filed before the Magistrate either praying for the cancellation of the bail or praying that the petitioner shall not be granted exemption from personal appearance since he is evading arrest pursuant to the order of detention. Clearly, therefore, the respondents have miserably failed to offer any explanation, let alone a satisfactory explanation in respect of delay in execution of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
