9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to detention order based on lack of awareness of retraction of confession in bail application. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, who is also the detenu, sought release by challenging the detention order passed against him under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention was based on the interception of the detenu and another individual by Enforcement Directorate officers, leading to the seizure of foreign currency and documents. The detenu's confessional statement was recorded, followed by his arrest and subsequent refusal of bail. The detention order was then issued. 2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the detaining authority was not aware of the retraction of the detenu's confession in his bail application, which could impact the validity of the detention order. The counsel highlighted that the authority considered another individual's retraction in the same case but failed to acknowledge the detenu's retraction. The detaining authority's reliance on the detenu's confession without considering the retraction was questioned. 3. The respondent's counsel contended that explicit mention of every detail was not necessary if the detaining authority demonstrated application of mind based on the grounds of detention. Referring to legal precedents, it was argued that awareness of retraction was crucial only in cases where the confession was deemed voluntary. The detaining authority's awareness of the retraction was deemed unnecessary in every case. 4. The court analyzed the arguments and emphasized that detaining authorities must be aware of confessions' retractions when making detention decisions. The court cited a Supreme Court case to support the importance of detaining authorities being mindful of retractions. The court differentiated between "expression of reaction" and "awareness of fact," stating that awareness of retraction must be reflected in the detention order, even if not explicitly stated. 5. The court further dismissed the respondent's argument regarding the detenu's statements before the Advisory Board, emphasizing that such statements could not validate an otherwise flawed detention order. Ultimately, due to the detaining authority's lack of awareness of the detenu's confession retraction, the court set aside the detention order and directed the detenu's immediate release unless detention was required for other reasons. 6. The court's decision to allow the petition was based on the detaining authority's failure to consider the detenu's confession retraction, highlighting the importance of such awareness in preventive detention cases. The judgment underscored the necessity for detaining authorities to be cognizant of all relevant facts, including retractions, to ensure the validity of detention orders.
|
