Honble GUPTA, J.–This habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India has been preferred by Smt. Paras Kanwar wife of Mangu Singh, detenue detained by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 4th of April, 1997 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 for short PIT NDPS Act. The detention has been challenged interalia on the ground that the detenue was granted bail vide order dated 19.3.97 and that the detenue had also retracted the alleged confession vide his application dated 25.10.96, but these important facts were not considered by the detaining authority. It was prayed that orders Annexures 1 & 3 dated 4.4.97 and 12.6.97 be quashed by issuing appropriate writ, order of direction and petitioner be released forthwith.

(2). In the return, respondent No.1 averred that no retraction statement dated 26.10.96 was received in the office of the respondent and that the order dated 19.3.97 granting bail to the petitioner was also not received in his office till the detention order was issued.

(3). We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. Mr. Shah has produced certified copies of the application dated 25.10.96 and 4.12.96 filed in the criminal case.

(4). Mr. Shah confined his arguments to one ground only that while passing the order the detaining authority did not consider the bail order granted by the High Court in favour of the petitioner and the retraction of the confession made by the petitioner on 25.10.96. He contended that it is a case of non- application of mind by the detaining authority on the important documents and hence the detention order is liable to be quashed. He cited the case of Sita Ram Somani vs. State of Rajasthan (1) in support of his contention.

(5). Mr. Joshi learned counsel for the, respondent No.1 did not dispute the legal position profounded in the case of Sita Ram Somani but his contention was that the petitioner did not inform the detaining authority about the bail order as also about the retraction of confession made by him, and as the detaining authority could not have the knowledge of these facts, the detention order should not be quashed. He submitted that even on the record of this writ petition, it has not been stated as to before which authority the confession was retracted and what was the mode of retraction.

(6). It has been held by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case that the detaining authority must consider the relevant material before taking a decision whether it was necessary to detain the person under the preventive detention law. In that case as in the instant case the detaining authority had not considered the retraction made by the detenue. The Honble Apex Court quashed the detention order. The following observations of the Supreme Court deserve to be reproduced:

``From what has been stated in the counter filed by the Union of India and the two counters filed by the State of Rajasthan, it appears to be clear to us that the documents mentioned by the appellant in his petition were not placed before the detaining authority and, therefore, were not considered by the detaining authority. It is possible that they were placed before the Screening Committee in the first ins- tance, but that is immaterial. It was the detaining authority that had to consider the relevant material before taking a decision whether it was necessary to detain the appellant under the COFEPOSA Act. That was not done and there was, therefore, a clear non-application of mind by the detaining authority to relevant material. Unfortunately, the High Court viewed it as a question of jurisdiction, that is to say, the High Court thought that detaining authority had jurisdiction to make the order of detention despite the retraction by the accused of his earlier confessional statement and the pendency of the criminal case against the appellant in which bail had been granted sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document