BAL CHAND BANSAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 11-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

'I 
A 
BAL CHAND BANSAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
APRIL 11, 1988 
B 
[A.P. SEN AND LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.] 
~ 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
·~ 
Activities Act, 1974: s.3( ])-Preventive detention-Compelling neces-
sity for-Detenu already in judicial custody-Likely to be released on 
bail-Order whether punitive. 
c 
The petitioner was apprehended on April 2, 1987 on information 
provided by his associate that he was the main person directing illegal 
remittances of money to foreign countries. He was formally arrested on 
April 3, 1987 and remanded to judicial custody till April 13, 1987. His 
associate was in the meantime enlarged on bail and being apprehensive 
D that the petitioner too may be released on April 13, 1987 when his 
application was to come up, an order of detention made under Section 
3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act was served on him on that day. The applica-
tion for bail tiled hy him was actually allowed the same day i.e. April 
13, 1987. 
~
E 
Petitioner's representation a~ainst the detention was rejected and 
a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution was 
dismissed by the High Court. In the Special Leave Petition arising out of 
the High Court's Order and the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the 
Constitution, it was contended that the impugned order amounts to 
-)-
double detention as the petitioner was already in jail when the detention 
F 
order was made, and that it was essential for the detaining authority to 
have been aware of the fact that the petitioner was already in jail and 
I 
was likely to be released on bail and further be had to be satisfied that 
compelling necessity existed for the detention, none of which conditions 
were satisfied. 
G 
Dismissing the petitions, 
) 
HELD: 1. A perusal of the grounds of detention clearly indicates 
that the detaining authority was conscious of the fact that the petitioner 
was in judicial custody and was apprehensive that he would be released 
on bail when an application for bail moved on his habalf was going to he 
H 
heard on April 13, 1987. The order passed on the hall application of the 
494 
B.C. BANSAL v. U.0.1. 
495 
petitioner's associate was also referred to therein. Thereafter, the 
detaining authority had mentioned his satisfaction about the necessity 
of the detention. [497F-H] 
A 
2. The object of detention has to be prevention of a detenu from 
indulging in activities prejudicial to the conservation of foreign 
B 
exchange resources, and not to frustrate his trial in a criminal case nor 
as a punitive measure. [4988] 
In the instant case the role of the petitioner has been detailed in 
the grounds showing how be got illegally siphoned the foreign exchange 
to the tune of about 2 crores of rupees out of the country. The grounds 
... also refer to the statements made by his associates which indicate that 
offences in respect of which the detenu was accused of were so inter-
linked and continuous in character and were of such nature that they 
fully justified the detention order. In the circumstances, the satisfaction 
of the detaining authorlty specilically recorded cannot be doubted. [498C, D, GI 
Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, [1986] 4 SCC 378, refer-
red to. 
3. Merely because the prayer for hail made on behalf of the 
petitioner was not opposed on behalf of the respondents before the 
Magistrate, it cannot he said that his detention was not called for. 
Having regard to the circumstances arising in the case, no such infer-
ence is permissible to he drawn in favour of the petitioner. [498H; 49981 
Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, [1985] 4 SCC 232, 
distinguished. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave 
Petition (Criminal) No. 3115of1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.1987 of the Delhi 
High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 219 of 1987. 
Kapil Sibal, Pinaki Mishra, Ms. Bina Gupta and Atul Tewari for 
the Petitioner. 
Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General, V.C. Mahajan, 
C.V. Subba Rao, Ms. A. Subhashini, Hemani Sharma and Arun 
Madan for the Respondents. 
I 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] 3 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. The petitioner has challenged his order of deten-
tion made under Section 3( 1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange 
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred 
to as the COFEPOSA). He filed an application under Article 226 of 
B the Co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.