9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of the detention order due to casual and careless manner of the detaining authority. 2. Detention of a professional carrier for carrying foreign currency. 3. Seizure of foreign currency and discrepancies in the documents presented. 4. Failure to present crucial documents like passport and ticket before the detaining authority. 5. Inclusion of detenu's earlier involvement without proper verification. 6. Delay in executing the detention order and related pleas. 7. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and lack of proper verification. Analysis: 1. The High Court decided to quash the detention order due to the casual and careless manner in which the detaining authority performed the task. Despite the detenu's involvement as a carrier for foreign currency, the court found the detention order to be flawed. 2. The detenu, a professional carrier, was caught carrying foreign currency concealed in his rectum. Although bail was granted, the detention was deemed necessary to prevent future activities. However, the court had to quash the order due to the detaining authority's casual approach. 3. The foreign currency was seized at the D.R.I. Office, not at the airport as initially indicated. Discrepancies in the documents presented to the detaining authority raised concerns about the accuracy of the information provided. 4. Crucial documents like the detenu's passport and ticket were not presented before the detaining authority, despite their relevance to the case. This omission, along with the failure to verify important details, contributed to the decision to quash the detention order. 5. The inclusion of the detenu's earlier involvement without proper verification was criticized by the court. The detaining authority failed to confirm these details, leading to doubts about the validity of the detention order. 6. The court addressed the delay in executing the detention order and dismissed related pleas, emphasizing that the delay did not warrant releasing the detenu. Other pleas regarding the detenu's statements and bail application were also considered insignificant. 7. The court highlighted the detaining authority's casual approach in reaching subjective satisfaction without proper verification. Failure to confirm crucial details and lack of thorough examination led to the decision to quash the detention order. In conclusion, the High Court found significant flaws in the detention order, including the detaining authority's casual approach and failure to verify crucial information. The decision to quash the order was based on these discrepancies and the lack of proper application of mind by the authority. The detenu was ordered to be set at liberty unless required for another matter.
|
