9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 907 - HC - CustomsWrit of Habeas Corpus - Release of detained petitioner - detention sought on the ground that the detention of petitioner in custody is illegal and the same is violative of Article 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India - smuggling - HELD THAT - In view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner about his involvement in the multi crore scam of the smuggling of gold in which the petitioner has actively participated, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner has efficacious remedy of filing the Bail Application and seeking regular bail before the competent court. Even if the remand order is illegal, which is passed mechanically in a cavalier fashion, still the remedy of the Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be said to be an efficacious remedy, but in terms of the Hon ble Supreme Court filing of Bail Application in such circumstances is appropriate remedy. The petitioner is entitled to avail appropriate remedy as available in law for seeking bail as per the advice - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Petitioner's Arrest and Detention. 2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India. 3. Maintainability of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. 4. Judicial Function of Granting Remand. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Petitioner's Arrest and Detention: The petitioner was apprehended by DRI officers on 27.08.2019 without formal arrest or identity disclosure, and taken to an undisclosed location. The formal arrest was shown on 28.08.2019, and the petitioner was produced before the ACMM on 29.08.2019. The petitioner argued that his arrest was illegal and violated procedural safeguards, including non-production within 24 hours and failure to take transit remand. The court found no evidence of arrest or detention on 27.08.2019 and held that the petitioner’s formal arrest on 28.08.2019 and subsequent judicial remand were lawful. 2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner claimed that his arrest and detention violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22. The court examined the circumstances and concluded that there was no breach of Article 22(2) as the petitioner was produced before the competent court within the required time frame. The court also noted that the petitioner did not raise the issue of illegal detention when produced before the magistrate, further undermining his claim of rights violation. 3. Maintainability of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: The court discussed the maintainability of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, emphasizing that such a writ is not maintainable if the detention is authorized by a competent court. The court cited several precedents, including *Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of India & Ors.*, which established that if a person is committed to jail custody by a competent court order, a Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be granted. The court found that the petitioner’s detention was authorized by the ACMM, making the writ petition not maintainable. 4. Judicial Function of Granting Remand: The court examined whether the remand order was passed mechanically or without application of mind. It concluded that the ACMM had applied its mind to the relevant facts and documents while granting remand, and the order was not passed mechanically. The court referenced the *Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi* case, which held that the action of directing remand is a judicial function and cannot be challenged through a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court found the remand order valid and the petitioner’s custody lawful. Conclusion: The court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the petitioner’s arrest and detention were lawful, there was no violation of fundamental rights, the writ was not maintainable, and the remand order was judicially sound. The petitioner was advised to seek bail through appropriate legal channels.
|
