SUNILA JAIN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

). '-y 
SUNILA JAIN 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
f 
J. 
Preventive Detention: 
Detaining authority-Subjective satisfaction of-Detenu had earlier been c 
released on bail by Special Court of Economic Offences on ground that the 
offence was bailable-Order of detention passed subsequently-If vitiated for 
non1urnishing of copy of the bail application before detaining authority-
Held: Not vitiated since there was no impairment in the subjective satisfaction 
of the detaining authority-Detaining authority was shown to have knowledge 
that the detenu had already been released on bail-Constitution of India, D 
1950-Article 22(5)-Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of 
. "i 
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974-Section 3(1)-Customs Act-Section 108 . 
j 
Detenu is husband. of the Appellant. He had earlier been released 
on bail by the Special Court of Economic Offences. Copy of the Bail 
E 
application moved by the detenu was not placed before the detaining 
authority for its consideration. Order of detention was subsequently passed 
by the detaining authority. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
whether the order of detention was vitiated for non-furnishing of copy of F 
---1 
bail application before it. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Application of mind to the averments made in a bail 
application may be relevant where the grounds stated therein reveal G 
certain facts which are vital for passing an order of detention. In a case 
of such nature, it may be said the application for bail was necessary to be 
:1 
placed before the detaining authority and non-furnishing of a copy thereof 
~· 
to the detenu would vitiate the order of detention. [482-E) 
" 
H 
.: 
475 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India & Ors., [199211 SCC 
1; M. Ahmedkutty v. Union of India & Ors.(19901 2 SCC 1 and P. U. Abdul 
( 
~ 
Rahiman v. Union of India & Ors.,(19911supp2 SCC 274, distinguished 
Mrs. Tsering Dolkar v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., 
B 
(19871 2 sec 69, referred to. 
2. Whether a detenu on the date of the passing of the order of 
detention was in custody or not would be a relevant fact. It would also be 
a relevant fact that whether he is free on that date and if he is, whether 
he is subjected to certain condition in pursuance of and in furtherance of 
A 
c the order of bail. If pursuant to or in furtherance of such conditions he 
may not be able to flee from justice, that may be held to be relevant 
consideration for the purpose of passing an order of detention but the 
converse is not true. Some such other grounds raised in the application 
for bail and forming the basis of passing an order of bail may also be held 
to be relevant. It would, however, not be correct to contend that 
D irrespective of the nature of the application for bail or irrespective of the 
nature of the restrictions, if any, placed by the Court of competent 
jurisdiction in releasing the detenu on bail, the same must invariably and 
mandatorily be placed before the detaining authority and the copies 
l-
thereof supplied to the detenu. (482-D-E-F-Gl 
E 
3. On the petitioner's own showing, only that part of the application 
for grant of bail that the offence in question is bailable, was relevant. No 
other submission had been raised. Whether a provision of law is bailable 
or not is a question of law. The same is presum.ed to be known to courts 
and I or the detaining authority. It may not be necessary even to be stated 
F in the application for bail. If a person had been released on bail on the 
ground that the offence is bailable, it would not be necessary to bring the 
said fact before the detaining authority. The detaining authority will have 
.... 
to satisfy himself on the basis of the materials placed on record, as to 
whether the order of preventive detention should be passed against the 
G 
detenu or not. The constitutional mandate can be said to be violated, 
provided: (1) the impairment has been caused to the subjective satisfaction 
to be arrived at by the detaining authority, and (2) if relevant facts had 
not been considered or the relevant or vital d.ocuments have not been 
placed before the detaining authority. (483-A, B, C, D) 
>-
H 
4.1. In the instant case the order of detention has taken note of the 
' } 
Ji --y· 
.. 
). 
~ 
f 
SUNILA JAIN v. U.0.1. [SIN
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.