AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—This petition has to be allowed on a short ground. The relevant facts are that the detention order was passed on 10.5.1990.
At that time, the detenu/Petitioner was on bail. The condition imposed by this Court in Crl. M.P. No. 4906 of 1990 dated 5.4.1990 was that the
Petitioner shall appear before the Inspector of Customs, Airport, Tiruchirapalli, once a week at 10 a.m. Though the order of detention was passed
on 10.5.1990, the actual arrest was made only on 26.8.1993. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner was absconding and he could not be
arrested. The Respondents also placed reliance on a Notification issued u/s 7(1)(b) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act, on 3.4.1991.
There cannot be any dispute as to the fact that the Petitioner was bound to appear before the Inspector of Customs, Airport, Tiruchirapalli,
once in a week, according to the order of this Court. Nothing has been stated by the Respondents as to whether any attempt was made to arrest
the Petitioner when he appeared before the Inspector of Customs in compliance with the condition imposed by this Court; nor is it clearly stated
that the Petitioner did not appear before the Inspector of Customs, Airport, Tiruchirapalli, at any time after 10.5.1990.
The Petitioner has, on the other hand, sent a representation to the authorities in which he has asserted that he was very much available in his
place during the relevant time. In the order of rejection passed by the Government in G.O. Rt. No. 3554, Public (Law and Order-D) Department
dated 25.10.1993, there is no reference to the said assertion made by the Petitioner.
When the matter was heard on the last occasion, we requested the Additional Public Prosecutor to find out from the office of second
Respondent whether the Petitioner appeared before the Inspector of Customs, Airport, Trichy, on any date after 10.5.1990 in compliance with the
order passed by this Court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has reported today that he has received a communication from the concerned
official that no records are available in their office as regards the Petitioner.
In the circumstances, a presumption has to be drawn in favour of the Petitioner. If really the Petitioner had not complied with the condition
imposed by this Court in the bail order, the Respondent would have made an application to cancel the bail granted. No such application was made
and the order continues to be in force, Therefore, this Court has to infer that though the Petitioner was available, the detention order was not
enforced and the Petitioner was not arrested for over a period of three years. There is no explanation for this inordinate delay.
We are of the view that the instant case is directly covered by the ruling of the Supreme Court in K.P.M. Basheer Vs. State of Karnataka and
another, . The order of detention cannot, therefore, be sustained, since the ''live and proximate link'' between the grounds of detention and the
purpose of detention is snapped on account of the undue and unreasonable delay in securing the detenu/Petitioner and detaining him.
We are not referring to the other grounds raised by the Petitioner, in view of the fact that we are allowing this petition on the sole ground
aforementioned.
Under these circumstances, the detention order made in S.C. No. SR. 1/479_7/90, Public (SC) Department, dated 10.5.1990 is quashed. The
Petitioner is directed to be set at liberty immediately, unless he is otherwise required in connection with any other case. The Petitioner is,
accordingly, allowed.