Preventive Detention Order To Be Quashed When Passed Without Considering Bail Granted By Magistrate : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently set aside a preventive detention order against an alleged key member of a syndicate that smuggled foreign gold into India observing that the detaining authority failed to consider the conditions imposed by the jurisdictional Magistrate when granting him bail in case arising from the same allegations.

A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran noted that while the conditions imposed by the Magistrate were outlined in the detention order, the detaining authority did not discuss whether these conditions were sufficient to restrain the detenu from indulging in further smuggling activities. The court granted relief on this ground even though the appellant-detenu's wife, did not raise this contention.

“When bail was granted by the jurisdictional Court, that too on conditions, the detaining authority ought to have examined whether they were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities; which is the very basis of the preventive detention ordered. The detention order being silent on that aspect, we interfere with the detention order only on the ground of the detaining authority having not looked into the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail for the very same offence; the allegations in which also have led to the preventive detention, assailed herein, to enter a satisfaction as to whether those conditions are sufficient or not to restrain the detenu from indulging in further like activities of smuggling”, the court held.

The Court emphasised that it was not concerned with whether or not the conditions were sufficient, but rather the detaining authority's failure to assess whether the Magistrate's conditions were sufficient to prevent the detenu from continuing smuggling activities.

The Court emphasized that the detaining authority should have considered the adequacy of these conditions in forming its subjective satisfaction regarding the need for preventive detention.

The Court observed that, after the detenu's arrest, he was remanded to judicial custody, and his original confessional statements were retracted when he was produced before the Magistrate. Despite the DRI's apprehension about the detenu's continued involvement in smuggling activities, the Magistrate granted bail with specific conditions. These conditions were designed to prevent the detenu from engaging in further smuggling activities. The detaining authority, however, did not explain why these conditions were insufficient to prevent the detenu from continuing his illegal activities, the Court noted.

The Court cited the case of Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar, which highlighted the importance of careful scrutiny before preventive detention orders are passed, especially when the individual in question has been granted bail under specific conditions.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the detention order, directing the immediate release of the detenu if still in custody.

The detenu had been in custody since March 5, 2024, and his wife filed an appeal after the Delhi High Court upheld the detention order. The detenu was accused of smuggling foreign gold into India and was detained under the COFEPOSA Act, alleging his involvement in organized smuggling activities that endangered national security and the economy.

The appellant challenged the detention order, arguing it relied on omnibus allegations under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, which showed bias and sought preventive detention despite the detenu being granted bail with stringent conditions. As per the DRI, intelligence reports and raids confirmed the detenu's role in a smuggling syndicate.

The Supreme Court found that the detaining authority had detailed the smuggling activities and properly applied its mind to the facts, concluding there was a valid basis for preventive detention under Sections (i) to (iv) of Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the bail cancellation application, filed after the detention order, should have been considered, noting the detaining authority was not expected to speculate on its outcome.

Further, the appellant challenged the reference to the detenu's prior conviction in a narcotics case. The Court ruled this was not used to justify the detention but to highlight the detenu's criminal tendencies. The reference did not form the basis for the detention, and the Court dismissed this argument.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the detention order on the ground that the detaining authority had not adequately considered the bail conditions and directed the immediate release of the detenu if still in custody.

Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.16893 of 2024

Case Title – Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 298