Introduction
Date of the Judgment: March 06, 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 327
Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Can preventive detention be justified if the detaining authority fails to consider the conditions imposed by a Magistrate while granting bail for the same alleged offences? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act). The Court quashed a detention order, emphasizing the necessity for the detaining authority to assess whether the bail conditions were sufficient to prevent further illegal activities.
The case involved an individual detained under the COFEPOSA Act for alleged smuggling activities. The detaining authority issued the detention order without considering the conditions imposed by the Magistrate when granting bail to the detenu for the same set of allegations. The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, held that this omission was a significant oversight, warranting the quashing of the detention order.
Case Background
The case originated from intelligence gathered indicating that the detenu, Joyi Kitty Joseph, and his wife were allegedly operating a syndicate involved in smuggling foreign gold into India and selling it in the local market. Specific intelligence pointed to the transmission of 10 kg of smuggled gold through certain individuals for sale in Mumbai.
On March 5, 2024, a raid was conducted at a shop room, leading to the recovery of gold bars, coins, cut pieces, and a substantial amount of Indian currency. Individuals present at the shop disclosed that the contraband was brought in by Mohammad Rafique Noor Mohammad Razvi @ Aarif and Mahendra Jain, who were allegedly acting on the detenu’s instructions to sell the gold on a commission basis. No documents were provided to substantiate the legal sourcing of the goods, leading to their seizure by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
Subsequently, DRI officers raided the residential premises of the detenu based on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The officers faced resistance upon entry. The premises were found in disarray, suggesting attempts to conceal contraband. Mobile phones and additional contraband were recovered from the office bearers of the residential society and the detenu’s residence.
Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act revealed that the detenu headed a syndicate involved in smuggling gold, with Mohammad Rafique Noor Mohammad Razvi @ Aarif and Mahendra Jain acting as commission agents. Ummed Singh and Mahipal Vyas, employees of the agents, were also implicated in the sale of the smuggled gold. Mohammad Rafique Noor Mohammad Razvi @ Aarif confessed to acting as an agent for the detenu, receiving a commission of Rs. 2000 per kilogram. He stated that the detenu would send 2 to 3 kilograms of smuggled gold daily for sale.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| [Intelligence Gathering Period] | Intelligence gathered about the detenu and his wife operating a gold smuggling syndicate. |
| March 5, 2024 | Raid conducted at a shop room, resulting in the recovery of gold and currency. |
| March 5, 2024 | Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, leading to further raids. |
| [Date not specified] | Raids conducted at the residential premises of the detenu and his associates. |
| [Date not specified] | Detenu and other accused remanded to judicial custody. |
| [Date not specified] | Original confessional statements retracted before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. |
| Till 19.03.2024 | Detenu initially placed in judicial custody. |
| Till 01.04.2024 | Extension of judicial custody granted by the jurisdictional Magistrate. |
| Till 15.04.2024 | Further extension of judicial custody granted. |
| April 01, 2024 | Bail application filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. |
| April 15, 2024 | DRI, Mumbai, replied to the bail application. |
| April 16, 2024 | Detenu released on bail by the jurisdictional Magistrate with certain conditions. |
| May 06, 2024 | Application for cancellation of bail filed. |
| May 09, 2024 | Detention order passed. |
Legal Framework
Several legal provisions are central to understanding this judgment:
- The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act): This act provides for preventive detention in certain cases to conserve foreign exchange and prevent smuggling activities.
- Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act: This section outlines the grounds for detention, including smuggling goods, abetting smuggling, engaging in transporting or concealing smuggled goods, and dealing in smuggled goods.
- The Customs Act, 1962: This act governs customs duties, prohibitions on imports and exports, and related matters.
- Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962: This section empowers customs officers to record statements during investigations.
- The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act): This act prohibits and penalizes various activities related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The proviso to Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act states that detention under this provision is prohibited if an order of detention can be made under Section 3 of the NDPS Act.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Joyi Kitty Joseph):
- ✓ Non-application of mind: The appellant argued that the detaining authority showed a clear non-application of mind by invoking clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act in an omnibus manner, revealing bias.
- ✓ Pending bail cancellation: The appellant contended that the Department’s application for cancellation of bail was never pursued and was not placed before the detaining authority, depriving the authority of the opportunity to consider the grounds for cancellation.
- ✓ No live link with NDPS Act case: The appellant argued that the reference to a conviction under the NDPS Act, for which the detenu was released on bail, had no live link with the detention order. Additionally, the proviso to Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act prohibits detention under that provision if an order can be made under Section 3 of the NDPS Act.
Respondents’ Arguments (Union of India):
- ✓ Involvement in smuggling: The respondents argued that the detenu was deeply involved in smuggling activities, as evidenced by intelligence gathered, raids conducted, and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
- ✓ Habitual offender: The respondents asserted that the detenu was a habitual offender and a key figure in an organized syndicate involved in smuggling gold, posing a threat to the national economy.
- ✓ No non-supply of vital document: The respondents contended that the application for cancellation of bail was filed shortly before the detention order was passed, making it impossible to place the document before the detaining authority. They also argued that the cancellation of bail is not an alternative to a detention order.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellant | Sub-Submissions by Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Non-application of mind |
✓ Allegations under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act raised in an omnibus manner. ✓ Application for bail cancellation not considered by detaining authority. |
✓ Detenu deeply involved in smuggling activities based on intelligence, raids, and statements. ✓ Detenu is a habitual offender posing threat to national economy. |
| No live link with NDPS Act case |
✓ Reference to NDPS Act conviction has no live link with detention order. ✓ Proviso to Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act prohibits detention if order can be made under NDPS Act. |
✓ Reference to NDPS Act case only to emphasize the detenu’s propensity to involve in illegal activities. |
| Bail cancellation issue | ✓ Application for bail cancellation not placed before detaining authority. |
✓ Application for bail cancellation filed shortly before detention order. ✓ Cancellation of bail is not an alternative to a detention order. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:
- Whether the detention order was valid, considering the allegations of non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
- Whether the detaining authority’s failure to consider the bail conditions imposed by the Magistrate, while granting bail for the same offences, vitiated the detention order.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It | Brief Reasons Given by Supreme Court |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of the detention order considering allegations of non-application of mind | Rejected the contention of non-application of mind but found another compelling ground. | The court found that the ingredients of clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act were met. However, it identified that the detaining authority did not consider the efficacy of the bail conditions. |
| Failure to consider bail conditions imposed by the Magistrate | Interfered with the detention order. | The detaining authority did not assess whether the bail conditions were sufficient to restrain the detenu from indulging in further like activities of smuggling. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B. Gujral [(1979) 2 SCC 637] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Overlapping of smuggling and its abetting |
| Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana [(2020) 13 SCC 632] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Reference to pending criminal case without clear indication and casual connection |
| Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar [AIR 1968 SC 1303] | Supreme Court of India | Cited | Need for greatest circumspection in exercising power of preventive detention |
| Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana [(2023) 9 SCC 587] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Distinction between “law and order” and “public order” |
| Rekha v. State of T.N. [(2011) 5 SCC 244] | Supreme Court of India | Deprecated | Preventive detention impermissible when ordinary law is sufficient (per incuriam) |
| Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B. [(1975) 3 SCC 198] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Limited judicial review in preventive detention matters |
| Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [(1984) 3 SCC 14] | Supreme Court of India | Cited with approval | Caution in scrutinizing preventive detention orders when bail is granted by a competent court |
| Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act | N/A | Interpreted | Grounds for detention |
| Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 | N/A | Mentioned | Power to record statements |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How Each Submission Was Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Non-application of mind (Appellant) | Rejected the direct argument but found a related compelling ground. The court acknowledged the detailed aspects of smuggling carried out by the detenu and the ingredients of clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. |
| Pending bail cancellation (Appellant) | Found that non-placement of the bail cancellation application before the detaining authority did not vitiate the detention order because cancellation of bail is not an alternative to a detention order. |
| No live link with NDPS Act case (Appellant) | Agreed that there was no live link but did not find this point vitiating the impugned order. The reference to the NDPS case was only to emphasize the propensity of the detenu to involve in illegal activities. |
| Involvement in smuggling (Respondent) | Accepted the evidence of involvement in smuggling activities. |
| Habitual offender (Respondent) | Acknowledged the detenu as a habitual offender involved in smuggling. |
| No non-supply of vital document (Respondent) | Accepted that there was no possibility of placing the bail cancellation application before the detaining authority in time. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B. Gujral [(1979) 2 SCC 637]: The court relied on this case to support the view that there is often an overlapping of smuggling and its abetting.
- Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana [(2020) 13 SCC 632]: The court distinguished this case, noting that in the present case, involvement in a case under the NDPS Act was not raised as a ground for detention.
- Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar [AIR 1968 SC 1303]: The court cited this case to emphasize the need for the greatest circumspection on the part of those who wield the power of preventive detention.
- Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana [(2023) 9 SCC 587]: The court relied on this case to highlight the distinction between a threat to “law and order” and acts “prejudicial to public order.”
- Rekha v. State of T.N. [(2011) 5 SCC 244]: The court stated that the observations in this case were per incuriam to the Constitution Bench decision in Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B.
- Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B. [(1975) 3 SCC 198]: The court referred to this case regarding the limited judicial review available to constitutional courts in preventive detention matters.
- Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [(1984) 3 SCC 14]: The court cited this case with approval, emphasizing that great caution should be exercised in scrutinizing the validity of an order of preventive detention when a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the detaining authority’s failure to consider the bail conditions imposed by the Magistrate. Although the Court acknowledged the detenu’s involvement in smuggling activities, the lack of consideration regarding the efficacy of the bail conditions was a critical oversight.
| Reason | Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Detaining authority’s failure to consider bail conditions | Negative | 60% |
| Acknowledgment of detenu’s involvement in smuggling | Neutral | 25% |
| Adherence to legal principles in preventive detention | Positive | 15% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 40% |
| Law (consideration of legal principles) | 60% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court emphasized that while it is not within its purview to assess the reasonableness of the conditions, the detaining authority must demonstrate that it considered whether those conditions were sufficient to prevent further illegal activities.
The Court quoted Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar [AIR 1968 SC 1303]:
“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… However, the detention of a person without a trial, merely on the subjective satisfaction of an authority however high, is a serious matter. It must require the closest scrutiny of the material on which the decision is formed, leaving no room for errors or at least avoidable errors.”
The Court also noted the observations in Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [(1984) 3 SCC 14], as extracted in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana [(2023) 9 SCC 587]:
“When a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinising the validity of an order of preventive detention which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the criminal court.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Detaining authorities must consider the bail conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail for the same offences.
- ✓ Failure to consider bail conditions can lead to the quashing of a detention order.
- ✓ Preventive detention laws should be strictly construed to protect individual liberties.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the detenu, Joyi Kitty Joseph, be released forthwith if still in custody.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a detaining authority must consider the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail for the very same offence that led to the preventive detention. The failure to do so can result in the detention order being quashed. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting individual liberties and ensuring that preventive detention laws are strictly construed.
Conclusion
In Joyi Kitty Joseph vs. Union of India (2025) INSC 327, the Supreme Court quashed the detention order against the appellant, emphasizing that the detaining authority failed to consider the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail for the same alleged offences. This decision underscores the necessity for detaining authorities to assess the efficacy of bail conditions to prevent further illegal activities, thereby safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring the judicious application of preventive detention laws.