Court Sets Aside Preventive Detention For Failure To Consider Bail Conditions In Same Case

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by the wife of a detenu challenging a COFEPOSA detention order confirmed by the High Court. The petition assailed preventive detention imposed after raids and seizures of smuggled gold and cash, contending non-application of mind, omnibus allegations under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act and failure to place an application for cancellation of bail before the detaining authority.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the detention order, holding that the detaining authority had failed to consider whether the conditions on which bail had been granted by the magistrate were sufficient to prevent the accused from resuming the alleged smuggling activities. The judges emphasised that while the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is ordinarily not amenable to appellate scrutiny, the authority must at least record consideration of relevant facts and measures that might negate the need for preventive detention. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The criminal prosecution launched and the preventive detention ordered are on the very same allegations of organised smuggling activities, through a network set up, revealed on successive raids carried on at various locations, on specific information received, leading to recovery of huge cache of contraband. When bail was granted by the jurisdictional Court, that too on conditions, the detaining authority ought to have examined whether they were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities; which is the very basis of the preventive detention ordered. The detention order being silent on that aspect, we interfere with the detention order only on the ground of the detaining authority having not looked into the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail for the very same offence; the allegations in which also have led to the preventive detention, assailed herein, to enter a satisfaction as to whether those conditions are sufficient or not to restrain the detenu from indulging in further like activities of smuggling.” The Court also reiterated the principle that “The formation of the opinion about detention rests with the Government or the officer authorised. Their satisfaction is all that the law speaks of and the courts are not constituted an Appellate Authority,” but noted that where the detaining authority did not consider key material its decision could not stand.

Background The detention order followed intelligence and raids on multiple premises on March 5, 2024, where large quantities of foreign-origin gold, cut pieces and cash were recovered. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act implicated the detenu as the kingpin of a syndicate that imported and sold smuggled gold through agents on a cash basis without invoices. Successive raids at the detenu’s residence and associates’ premises yielded further recoveries. The detaining authority recorded habit and propensity to smuggle, concluding that the activities jeopardised revenue and national interest and invoked clauses (i)–(iv) of Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA.

The detenu had been remanded to judicial custody, and the jurisdictional magistrate granted bail on April 16, 2024 subject to conditions intended to prevent recurrence. The detaining authority issued the preventive detention order on May 9, 2024; an application for cancellation of bail was filed on May 6, 2024 but was never pursued. The High Court upheld the detention; the present appeal challenged the absence of specific consideration by the detaining authority of the bail conditions imposed for the same allegations. Relying on precedents addressing the strict contours of preventive detention and the circumspection required in its exercise, the Supreme Court found that silence on whether bail conditions were adequate rendered the detention order unsustainable. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the COFEPOSA detention order and directed immediate release of the detenu if still in custody. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 327 Case Title: Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Farook M. Razack, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General of India