Summary
The Union challenged quashing of two COFEPOSA detention orders against persons already in judicial custody. The Supreme Court found that the authority had considered their custody, likely release and propensity to resume prejudicial activities on the material before it. Non-consideration of a co-accused’s retraction did not invalidate these orders because neither sponsoring nor detaining authority knew of it when detention was ordered. The orders were restored.
Issues
- Whether existing judicial custody invalidated the preventive detention orders in the circumstances.
- Whether non-consideration of a co-accused’s retraction vitiated subjective satisfaction.
- Whether the connected petitions concerning statutory protection warranted relief.
Held
- Preventive detention of a person in custody requires awareness of that custody and satisfaction on relevant material about likely release, likely renewed prejudicial conduct and the need for detention. The Court found those requirements met here. (¶¶ 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9)
- Subsequent bail on the same day as the High Court’s quashing fortified the authority’s apprehension of release; the High Court’s contrary conclusion was erroneous on these facts. (¶ 9)
- The retraction had initially gone only to the magistrate, with prosecution knowledge arising after the detention orders. The unsigned, unstamped handwritten entry relied on to show earlier knowledge inspired no confidence. Non-consideration therefore did not vitiate these orders. (¶ 10)
- The connected petitions seeking a change in the reading of section 13 were unsupported by oral submissions and were dismissed. (¶ 11)
Result
The Union’s appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside and both detention orders restored. Ashok Kumar Jalan and Amit Jalan were to be taken into custody forthwith. The respondent’s special leave petition and the three connected writ petitions were dismissed.