Intent behind detention is to sever link between detainees & associates: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, July 14

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the intention of detention is to sever the live link between detainees and their associates, and a lengthy period in judicial custody is sufficient to achieve the purpose.

The assertion came as a Division Bench granted bail to four accused, including an alleged member of “proscribed terrorist organization” Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, after taking note of the fact that they were in judicial custody for almost four years.

“In the case in hand, the appellants to whom bail is hereby granted, are in the judicial custody for almost four years, which is sufficient period to snap link of appellants with their associates. Thus, there is compliance of intent and purport of Section 37 of NDPS Act,” the Bench of Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Jagmohan Bansal asserted.

The Bench asserted that the Constitutional courts were assigned role of “sentinel qui vive” or watchful guardian for protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Article 22 permitted detention – the worse form of deprivation of personal liberty. But there were safeguards such as the constitution of advisory board and the maximum tenure of detention. TADA, MISA and COFEPOSA were different enactments permitting detention without trial. But the intention was snap the live link.

The Bench also observed the accused were charge-sheeted under different provisions of the IPC, the NDPS Act and the UAPA. They were allegedly involved in the sale and purchase of drugs. In the course of these activities, they came into contact with individuals who were connected to people involved in criminal activities, including terrorist activities.

The common allegations against them were that they “entered into a criminal conspiracy to smuggle, and to do trading of heroin in India and to generate the proceeds of heroin and further to channelize/transfer the proceeds to the proscribed terrorist organisation namely Hizb-ul-Mujahideen”.

The Bench asserted that there was no recovery of drugs from the accused, except one. But there were serious allegations that they “transported”, huge quantity of heroin and proceeds of crime from one place to another place”.

Besides this, properties were not attached despite allegations that they acquired assets from the proceeds of crime. As such, respondent National Investigation Agency failed to attach properties derived from the proceeds under both the UAPA and the NDPS Act.