In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Reserved On: 04.09.2025 Pronounced On: 29.10.2025 Anuj Dhawan and Another ... Petitioner(s)

Versus Union of India and Others ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present: Ms. Sangita Bhayana, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr,. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Samridhi Jain, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Mr. Vishal Sharma and Mr. Abhav Sharma, Advocates, for respondent No.4.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a directions to the respondents in the form of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioners, who are the residents of Delhi, hereinafter referred to as “the detenus” only. The petitioners were arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ludhiana, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, hereinafter being referred to as “the 1962 Act” only, and thereafter, by virtue of impugned orders, they have been detained under the ‘Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974’ (for short “COFEPOSA”).

I attest to the accurac2y .and It has been pleaded by the petitioners that they are law abiding and peace-loving citizens, and that they have been detained in view of an opinion formed by the authorities that they had a vital role in smuggling of gold from other country, i.e. China. As per petitioners, in the grounds of detention, it has been claimed that on different occasions in the past around 200 kgs. of gold was brought to India through several residents of Ladhak, who are co-detenus in the present case, and that the petitioners were involved in selling of gold in local market of Delhi, and that there is propensity in selling of said gold in local market in future also.

3. While referring to the grounds of detention, it has been pleaded by the petitioners that the panchnama dated 12.09.2024 shows that respondent No.3 conducted search at the residence of detenu No.1, 4^th floor, F-272, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi, but no incriminating material was recovered, and thereafter, the petitioner No.1 was arrested at New Delhi and was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana, on 14.09.2024, after obtaining transit remand order dated 13.09.2024, from the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. According to petitioners, a bare perusal of the grounds of detention makes it abundantly clear that nothing related to the alleged offence has been recovered from the residence of petitioner No.1, and that but he has been illegally detained.

4. The petitioners have further pleaded that as per the grounds of arrest at the time of seizure of 108 Kg of gold bars, by a patrol party of 21st battalion, ITBP, near Sirigapale in East Ladakh, being smuggled from China by 2 porters, namely Tenzin Dhargyal & Tsering Chamba, the petitioners, were not present there, and that in fact, the Petitioners/Detenus No.1 & 2, were present at Delhi, when the above said offence took place. As per petitioners, without application of mind the respondents, in mechanical manner, have issued the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 and therefore, the detention order deserves to be set aside on this sole ground itself.

5. With regard to detention of the petitioner No.2, it has been alleged by the petitioners that the petitioner No.2 himself had surrendered before the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana, pursuant to summons received under Section 108 of the 1962 Act. According to petitioners, even the petitioner No.2 was illegally arrested for the commission of offence punishable under Section 108 of the 1962 Act. The petitioners have further alleged that the grounds of detention supplied to them shows that it has been claimed by the respondents that the petitioner/detenus No.1 and 2 on various occasi