The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict compliance with procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases, including the need for sufficient material to justify detention and the consideration of the imminent possibility of the detainee being released on bail.

JUDGMENT :

Siddharth Mridul, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 essentially in the nature of writ of habeas corpus, has been instituted by Ankit Ashok Jalan, seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned detention orders bearing Nos.PD-12001/34/2019- COFEPOSA and PD-12001/35/2019-COFEPOSA dated 01.07.2019 issued against his father Ashok Kumar Jalan as well his brother Amit Jalan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the detenus’) respectively, and to set them at liberty forthwith.

2. The facts as are relevant for the adjudication of the present proceeding are briefly encapsulated as follows:-

(i) In the light of specific intelligence, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit (for short ‘DRI’) intercepted one “Anand” on 09.06.2019 near Dankuni Toll Plaza, West Bengal, while he was travelling on a bus from Siliguri to Kolkata, carrying 8 Kgs. of gold of foreign origin valued at Rs.2.71 crores approximately.

(ii) The said Anand, vide his statements recorded on 09.06.2019 and 10.06.2019 indicated that, he had been engaged by the detenus to receive the 8 bars of smuggled gold from Indo-Bhutan border at Jaigaon from an unknown person, to be transported and delivered to Kolkata and Delhi.

(iii) As per the detenus, they were apprehended by officers of DRI on 10.06.2019 at about 2.00 p.m. at the Food Court of Quest Mall, 33, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Park Circus, Beck Bagan Row, Kolkata, West Bengal-700017 and taken to the latter’s office.

(iv) The detenus’ self-incriminating confessions were purportedly obtained under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) and they were formally shown as arrested on 11.06.2019 under the provisions Section 104 of the said Act.

(v) Thereafter the detenus were produced before the court of Judicial Magistrate on 12.06.2019.

(vi) Vide order dated 12.06.2019 in Misc.67/2019, the learned CMM, Kolkata rejected the prayer of bail made on behalf of the detenus and remanded them to judicial custody till 18.06.2019. However, in view of the contention made on behalf of the detenus in relation to their illegal detention by the office of DRI on 10.06.2019, as aforestated, the learned CMM directed the office of the Cyber Police Station, Kolkata to obtain the relevant CCTV footage of the Food Court at Quest Mall, Kolkata.

(vii) The detenus remand to custody has been extended from time to time up to date.

(viii) Whilst the detenus were in custody, as aforestated, the detention orders impugned in the present petition were rendered by the Detaining Authority on 01.07.2019.

(ix) The impugned detention orders were served on both the detenus on 02.07.2019, and the relied upon documents (for short ‘RUD’) with the list of documents were served upon them on 04.07.2019.

(x) In the case of both the documents, a document at Sl.No.30 in the list of RUD served upon them, is purported to be a copy of the ‘retraction petition’ in respect of said Anand. It is an admitted position that, the said document at Sl.No.30, which is purported to be a ‘retraction petition’ is actually a copy of the bail application, filed by the said Anand.

(xi) The detenus filed their representations dated 07.07.2019, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘COFEPOSA’), addressed to the Detaining Authority, against the impugned detention orders, through the jail authorities.

3. Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the detenus vehemently assails the impugned orders, as being the mere ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority and issued mechanically, without due application of mind and also without any compelling reason and further without pointing out any cogent material for the alleged satisfaction, on the grounds that:-

(a) Despite the detenus al