IBRAHIM NAZEER versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 10-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

IBRAHIM NAZEER 
V. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
JULY I 0, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974; Section 3(/)(i): 
A 
B 
S111uggling of goods by accused-Detention-Filing of habeas corpus C 
petition by wife of the deten11-Dis111issed by High Court obsen,ing that the 
detaininft authority on the basis of the material available had shown compelling 
necessity to continue detention of the accused so as to prevent him ji-0111 
s11111ggling goods-On appeal, Held: Five bail applications filed earlier by the 
accused had already been rejected-It was not a normal case-Subjective D 
satisfaction of the authority that the detem1 is likely to he released on bail was 
based on material available before him-Under the circumstances, the High 
Court was right in dismissing the appeal. 
The appellant-detenu was intercepted by the Customs Officer at the 
airport. On examination of his baggage, he was found in possession of E 
smuggled goods. The goods so recovered were seized by the authorities 
and the order of detention was passed against him under Section 3(1 )(i) 
of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act to prevent him from indulging in smuggling of goods. The 
detention was questioned by the wife of the appellant by filing a habeas 
corpus petition. Stand of the appellant before the High Court essentially 
was that the Detaining Authority had merely, without application of mind 
followed the allegations of the Customs authorities without any 
independent inquiry. Further there was no basis for holding that there 
was imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The Petition 
F 
was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Appcllant-detenu contended that since he did not file any bail 
application after withdrawal of the first petition, the detaining authority 
could not hal'e inferred that there was possibility of his being released on 
357 
H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A bail. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on 
circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied. The 
B only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the 
detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The 
conclusion that the detenu may be released on.bail cannot be ipsi-dixit of 
the detaining authority. [361-C) 
1.2. On the basis of materials before the detaining authority, it came 
C to the conclusion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. 
That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such 
satisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of the case, the 
detaining authority has indi<:ated as to why he was of the opinion that there 
is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. In fact, five bail applications 
D filed by the detenu had already been rejected. Thus, it was not "normal" 
case. Hence, the High Court was justified in rejecting the stand of the 
appellant. (361-D-EI 
E 
F 
Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr, (2002[ 7 SCC 129, 
distinguished. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 732 
of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.2006 of the Madras High 
Court in H.C.P. No. 1126/2005. 
K.K. Mani for the Appellant. 
Mohan Parsaran, AGG, V. Krishnamurthy, Manish Sharma and B. 
Krishna Prasad for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a 
Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the habeas corpus 
H petition filed by one Rizwana Ziyath seeking release of her husband, the 
... 
IBRAHIMNAZEER v.STATEOFTAMlLNADU[PASAYAT,J.] 
359 
present appellant Ibrahim Nazeer (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') A 
who was detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison of Chennai under 
the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 
Act, 1974 (in short the 'COFEPOSA Act'). The order of detention was passed 
under Section 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA Act with a view to prevent the detenu 
from indulging in smuggling goods in future. The order of detention is dated B 
20.9.2005. 
The background facts which led to the detention of the detenu as set 
out in the grounds of detention are as follows: 
On 31.8.2005, the deten

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