Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ankit Ghanshyam Mutha, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus and direction for his release from custody of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in connection with RA No.71 of 2019 arising out of DRI F. No.DRI/MZU/E/INT-65/2019. The petitioner contended that his detention was illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The background of the case involves investigation into gold smuggling by a syndicate, which began around March 2019. On 29 March 2019, one Happy Dhakad was arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962. Although his bail application was rejected, he was later granted statutory default bail. An action under the COFEPOSA Act for detention was not sustained by the Advisory Board, leading to his release. The petitioner and family members of Happy Dhakad had earlier filed Criminal Writ Petition No.2700 of 2019 seeking protection of fundamental rights, which was partly allowed permitting presence of advocate at visible but not audible distance during interrogation and video recording of statements. The legal issues before the court were whether the petitioner's detention was illegal and whether his fundamental rights were violated. The petitioner argued that his detention was without authority of law and that he was entitled to be released. The respondents, Union of India through DRI and others, opposed the petition contending that the detention was lawful. The court analyzed the facts and found that the petitioner was arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 and was remanded to judicial custody by a competent court. The court held that the detention was not illegal and there was no violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed and rule discharged.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Habeas Corpus - Illegal Detention - Articles 14, 21, 22 of Constitution of India - Petitioner sought writ of habeas corpus alleging illegal detention by DRI under Customs Act, 1962 - Court examined facts and found detention lawful as petitioner was arrested under Section 104 of Customs Act and remanded to judicial custody by competent court - Held that no violation of fundamental rights established (Paras 1-26).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention of the petitioner in custody of DRI is illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Law Points
- Habeas Corpus
- Illegal Detention
- Customs Act 1962 Section 104
- COFEPOSA Act
- Constitutional Rights Articles 14
- 21
- 22
- Default Bail
- Advisory Board
