9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to detention order under COFEPOSA Act and subsequent declaration. 2. Non-consideration of bail rejection order by declaring authority. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the detention order made under the COFEPOSA Act and a subsequent declaration. The petitioner was found in possession of smuggled goods, leading to his detention. Various grounds were raised to challenge the detention order and declaration, with a focus on a specific issue regarding the non-consideration of a bail rejection order by the declaring authority. 2. The key contention in the case revolved around the failure of the declaring authority to consider an order rejecting the petitioner's bail application. The petitioner argued that the bail rejection order was a vital piece of evidence that could have influenced the declaring authority's decision to make the declaration under Section 9 of the COFEPOSA Act. The respondent, however, argued that the bail rejection was irrelevant since the detention order had already been issued. The court emphasized the importance of presenting all relevant evidence before the declaring authority to ensure a fair decision. Citing precedents and judgments, the court held that the bail rejection order was a crucial document that should have been considered. The court found that the non-consideration of the bail rejection order by the declaring authority rendered the declaration invalid and ordered the quashing of the declaration and the release of the petitioner from detention unless required otherwise.
|
