SMT. AZRA FATIMA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 268 · Decided: 12-07-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
SMT. AZRA FATIMA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND 01HERS 
WLY 12, 1990 
[B.C. RAY AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1988: Section 3(1), 3(3) and 10( 1)-Detention-
.,._ 
Communication of grounds-Principle of five days and fifteen days-
Jnapplicable in respect of declaration. 
Y 
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging 
the detention of her husband, Syed Ali Raza Shafiq Mohammed, under 
section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The detenu was then already in jail 
as he was involved in a case under the Act, and his bail application in ~ 
that case had been rejected. The Division Bench of the High Court 
dismissed the writ petition. 
' 
Before this Court in the Special Leave Petition it was inter-alia 
contended on behalf of the detenu that: (i) the mere possibility of the 
detenu's release on bail was not enough for preventive detention unless 
E 
there was material to justify the apprehension that his detention would 
be necessary in order to prevent him from engaging in illicit trafficking 
in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, in case of his release on 
~­
bail; (ii) the detention orders of Rai Chand Shah and Jai Lal Vora, who 
were arrested and detained in the same raid, having been struck down 
by the High Court on ~he ground that the medical report in respect of 
~-
F 
the injuries sustained by Rai Chand Shah was placed in a truncated 
form before the detaining authority, the detention order of the detenu 
should also be set aside as it suffered from the same vice; (iii) though the 
declaration was issued under Sec. 10(1) of the Act on 20.1.1989 but the 
-( 
same was served on the detenu on 10.2.1989 after an unexplained delay 
of 21 days; and (iv) there was in an inordinate and unexplained delay in 
G 
considering the representations made by the detenu. 
On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondents 
that: (i) it would depend on the facts and circumstances of eah case 
whether a detention order was to be passed or not in case of a person 
who was already in custody; (ii) the detaining authority could take into 
,l -
H account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu in order to 
268 
-.-· 
AZRA FATIMA V, U.O.I. 
269 
arrive at the conclusion that it was likely that after his release from 
custody he would indulge in criminal activities and it was necessary to 
detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in snch activities; and 
(iii) in the present case there was complete awareness in the mind oUhe 
detaining authority that if he was released on bail he was likely to 
indulge in the criminal activities. 
Dismissing the special leave petition, this Court, 
HELD: (1) The material placed before the detaining authority 
and the facts mentioned in the grounds of detention clearly go to show 
that the detaining authority was fully aware that the bail application 
filed by the detenn had been rejected. The detaining authority was also 
conscious of the fact that the two other detenus who were arrested and 
detained in the same raid had already been released on bail. [277B-C] 
(2) The antecedents of the detenu which were clear from his own 
statement went to show that he was initiated in drug trafficking in 1984 
and employed as a delivery boy on Rs.30 per day and within a short 
span of four years had himself started buying and selling Narcotic 
Drugs and amassed huge movable and immovable properties in 
Bombay. In the present raid itself hereoin and Mandrax tablets worth 
Rs.1, 13,42,000 were seized from the ownership and possession of the 
detenu. [277C-D] 
(3) The detaining authority after taking into consideration the 
material placed before him, arrived at the conclusion that the detenu 
being in judicial custody may under the normal law of the land be 
granted bail and Ile. in a position to continue to pursue his nefarious 
activities. [277E] 
( 4) The detaining authority in these circumstances considered it 
necessary to invoke the law of preventive detention under the Act to 
prevent the detenu from indulging in prejudicial activities in future. In 
these circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of detention was 
illegal on the ground that it was passed while the detenu was already in 
custody. [277F] 
( 5) The facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into 
consideration in the co

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