9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced on the very next day before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, and was remanded to jail custody. On 27th February, 1987 a bail application was moved on his behalf before the Chief Judicial Magistrate which was rejected. Being aggrieved by such order on 27th of February, 1987 an application was moved before the High Court which was rejected. Again on 4th of March, 1987 an application was moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for bail, which was rejected. Again being dissatisfied with such order dated 4th March, 1987 an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved before the High Court on 18th March, 1987 whereupon the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee granted bai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds was untrue and/or mala fide. 3. The main contention of Mr. Balai Roy, the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the detenu, was that although the detenu had been granted bail by an order of the High Court as stated earlier, such fact had not been placed before the Board, as such there had been non-application of mind, inasmuch as, had the attention of the Board been drawn to the fact, the Board after due consideration of such fact would have come to a different finding. As a follow-up action although a search was made at his residence, nothing incriminating was found there. Withholding of such material facts from the Board had resulted in such order. Under those facts and circumstances, the present proceeding in the nature of Hab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments and papers forwarded it to the Secretary, Home Special Department, for causing services of the detention order with the grounds upon the detenu at Dum Dum Central Jail, which was served on him on 31st of March, 1987. The Central Government referred the matter to the Advisory Board, New Delhi, for its opinion, which Board gave a hearing on 23rd of April, 1987 to the detenu at Calcutta. The deponent contended that it was specifically stated that Vinod Kumar Vohra, the detenu, was granted bail on 20th March, 1987 but he did not avail of the said bail order and remained in custody. 5. Although the detenu was produced on the very next day on 17th of February, 1987 after his arrest at the Dum Dum Airport before the learned Chief Judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er orders of the Court. The detenu was directed to report to the Investigating Authorities twice a month. Under the circumstances, the restrictions were imposed although enlarged on bail on his movement. Under these circumstances, the object of preventing the detenu from continuing and/or repeating his conduct of smuggling gold illegally into India has been achieved. The fact that he applied for bail before the High Court has been placed before the Board. The Board after due consideration of the grounds and the representation of the detenu had opined that the detenu should be put under detention for a specific period. Under the circumstances, there had been no non-application of the mind to such fact before such order was passed. In the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
