JUDGMENT - B.P. SINGH, C.J.:---This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Mrinal Namdev Waghmare, claiming to be a friend of the detenu, Manivannan Mahadevan alias Ruben, a foreign national, for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of the detenu, who has been detained by respondent No. 1, the Detaining Authority, under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, the PITNDPS Act) by an order dated 30th September, 1997 with a view to prevent him from engaging in the possession, concealment, transportation and illicit drug trafficking of narcotic drugs.

2. This writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. By an order dated 7th and 8th September, 1999, the Division Bench has referred the matter for being placed before a larger Bench for resolving the apparent conflict between two decisions of this Court in (Rafiq Abdul Karim Merchant v. Rajendra Singh)1, 1998 Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 472 and (Babulal Vildaram Bishnoi v. Reva Nayyar and others)2, 1998(6) Learned Judgments 1 Criminal Writ Petition No. 1203 of 1996. The detenu in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1203 of 1996, viz., Harish Chutraram Bishnoi alias Rajubhai alias Harish, was apprehended along with the petitioner in the instant writ petition on 5th May, 1997. By judgment dated 28th and 29th September, 1998, a Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that there was delay of 9 days in the disposal of the representation of the aforesaid co-detenu dated 29th October, 1997, vitiating his continued detention. Consequently, the Detention Order and the Declaration under section 10(1) of the PITNDPS Act was quashed.

3. The Division Bench, which had earlier heard this writ petition, was of the view that the delay in the disposal of the representation had been satisfactorily explained, but, in view of the fact that the writ petition of the co-detenu, Bishnoi, had been allowed, the matter required to be considered by a larger Bench. It was urged before the Division Bench that there was an apparent inconsistency between the two judgments of this Court which could be resolved only by a larger Bench. In view of the submission urged before it, the Division Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench, and that is how the matter has been placed before us under the order of the Chief Justice.

4. On 24th May, 1997, on the basis of secret information that a huge quantity of heroin, a narcotic drug, was being transported, the officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB), Mumbai, kept surveillance at Grant Road (East), Mumbai. They intercepted a white coloured Maruti 1000 Car bearing Registration No. MH-04-X-488. The officers of the NCB disclosed their identity, and informed the occupants of the car of the purpose for which the car had been stopped. Ruben, the detenu in this case, came out of the car and made a bid to escape, but he was chased by one of the officers, who also fired from his service pistol as a warning to the fleeing detenu. The detenu was thereafter chased and apprehended with the help of the members of the public who had assembled. The car was thereafter searched after complying with the mandatory provisions of the PITNDPS Act. There were two occupants of the car, viz., the detenu in the instant case, Ruben, and co-detenu, Harish Chutraram Bishnoi. They revealed to the officers the secret cavity behind the rear seat of the vehicle, which was opened by Ruben, and from where three gunny bags containing 23 kg. of heroin in packets of one kg. each were recovered and seized under panchanama drawn up immediately on the same day. It appears that the detenus had engaged two vehicles for the operation, and apart from the Maruti 1000 Car, in which they were travelling, there was another Fiat Car bearing Registration No. MH-03-A-0906, which was kept as a stand-by car. The statements of the detenues were recorded and all other formalities complied with. The detenues were

Click Here to Read the rest of this document