( 1 ) BY these two writ petitions petitioners Manoj Kumar Dubey (Crl. W. No. 758/99) and Anuj Vohra (Crl. W. No. 759/99) have sought the quashing of their respective detention orders dated 8th June, 1999 and 28th May, 1999 passed under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ACT) by the detaining authority (respondent No. 2), ordering their detention with a view to preventing them from smuggling goods.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner stated that in both these petitions common questions of law and fact arise for consideration. Therefore, it is proposed to dispose of these two petitions by a common judgment.

( 3 ) FACTS giving rise to these petitions briefly are: that, the petitioners were proceeding to board United Airlines Flight No. UA-002, scheduled to leave New Delhi for Hong Kong on 18th March, 1999 at 0135 hours, as its crew members; on specific intelligence they were intercepted and on being asked they denied that they were possessing any foreign currency; consequently their search was conducted in accordance with law. Search of Manoj Kumar Dubey revealed that a yellow colour paper envelope was concealed underneath two nylon belts wrapped around his abdomen and waist bend, which was found to contain assorted foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 99,49,375. 00 (Rupees ninety nine lacs forty nine thousand three hundred seventy five only ). Three paper slips bearing details of foreign currency transactions were also recovered.

( 4 ) SEARCH of Anuj Vohra revealed that a black coloured polythene baga beneath the back side of the waist bend of his trousers, which contained an envelope bearing the markings of `maurya Sheraton Executive Class , having US $ 20,900 equivalent to Indian Rs. 8,71,530. 00. Subsequently at the lock-up his search further revealed that beneath the soles of his both feet two packets were stuck with adhesive tapes in an ingenious manner which were found to contain foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 10. 42,500. 00.

( 5 ) THE detaining authority taking into consideration the potentiality and propensity of the petitioners, to indulge in prejudicial activities passed the impugned orders under Section 3 (1) of the Act, which were served on the petitioners along with the grounds of detention and relied upon documents. Petitioners sent to two separate representations on 2nd July, 1999 to Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) through Superintendent, Jail, the same were rejected vide two separate memorandums dated 16th July, 1999. Further vide memorandum dated 20th July, 1999 petitioners were informed that their representations were also considered by Central Government and were rejected.

( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. Harjinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners who has raised several contentions while attacking the impugned orders of detention. Mr. H. S. Phoolka, learned Sr. Advocate on behalf of Union of India and Mr. K. C. Mittal, learned counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi vehemently opposed all the contentions raised by the petitioner. We have also been taken through the record.

( 7 ) FIRSTLY, it was argued that before the detaining authority there was no cogent material to show that there was an imminent possibility of the petitioners being released; that in the grounds of detention it was only stated that a possibility of their being released on bail, in near future cannot be ruled out, therefore, the detention order was liable to be quashed.

( 8 ) AS per the settled law while deciding the legality of an order or preventive detention, passed by the detaining authority, observing "that there was likelihood of the petitioners being released on bail"; sufficiency of material on which such a satisfaction was arrived cannot be questioned. Perusal of the grounds of detention reveal that the detaining authority had considered contents of their bail applications filed before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrat