Preventive Detention Must Not Override Judicial Bail Without Proper Justification: Supreme Court Strikes Down COFEPOSA Order

Detaining Authority Must Consider Whether Bail Conditions Are Sufficient to Prevent Recurrence of Offense – In a significant judgment Supreme Court struck down the preventive detention of Joyi Kitty Joseph’s husband under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), ruling that the detaining authority failed to consider whether the bail conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court were sufficient to prevent the alleged smuggling activities. The Court held that "preventive detention is not meant to override a judicial order of bail unless there is a clear finding that bail conditions are inadequate to prevent further offenses."

The appellant, wife of the detenu, had approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s refusal to quash the detention order. The detenu had been arrested on March 5, 2024, based on allegations that he was running a large-scale gold smuggling syndicate. The High Court upheld the detention order, but the Supreme Court found that the detaining authority had failed to examine whether the stringent bail conditions already imposed were sufficient to prevent future offenses, making the detention order legally unsustainable.

"Smuggling Allegations Must Be Assessed in Light of Bail Conditions" – Supreme Court Rejects Mechanical Detention

The prosecution claimed that the detenu was the mastermind of an international gold smuggling syndicate, operating with his wife and multiple agents. Acting on intelligence, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) raided a shop in Mumbai on March 5, 2024, and seized gold bars, coins, and cash worth crores of rupees. Further raids at the detenu’s residence uncovered additional contraband, allegedly proving his involvement in large-scale smuggling.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but ruled that "preventive detention must be justified on grounds beyond mere suspicion or past conduct. A detaining authority must establish that existing bail conditions are insufficient to prevent the alleged individual from committing further offenses."

The Court observed that "when a person has been granted bail, preventive detention cannot be used as an alternative mechanism for continued custody. The detaining authority must provide a reasoned finding that bail conditions are inadequate to prevent recurrence of the alleged offense, which was absent in this case."

"Failure to Examine Bail Conditions Renders Detention Invalid" – Supreme Court Calls Out Procedural Lapses

The Supreme Court found a serious lapse in the detention order, as the detaining authority failed to examine or even mention the bail conditions imposed by the jurisdictional magistrate. The Court ruled that "since the magistrate had already considered the risk of reoffending and imposed strict bail conditions, it was incumbent upon the detaining authority to assess whether those conditions were inadequate. The failure to do so renders the detention order arbitrary and unlawful."

The Court cited Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar (1984) 3 SCC 14, stating that "preventive detention is a stringent measure and must not be used merely to nullify bail orders. The detaining authority must demonstrate why bail conditions are insufficient, rather than assuming preventive detention is necessary."

"Detention Order Based on General Allegations, Not Specific Threat Assessment"

The Supreme Court also found that the detention order broadly listed allegations of smuggling but failed to establish a fresh or immediate threat requiring preventive detention. The Court ruled that "detention cannot be justified merely on the basis of past offenses unless there is a real-time threat to public order that existing bail conditions cannot address."

The Court noted that the detenu’s name change from 'Afzal Haroon Batatawala' to 'Sameer Haroon Marchant' was cited as evidence of his propensity for crime, but this alone was insufficient to justify preventive detention in the absence of specific evidence linking him to ongoing smuggling activities after bail."

The judgment emphasized that "while smuggling is a serious offense, preventive detention laws cannot be misused as a substitute for criminal prosecution. The law demands that the detaining authority assess all relevant factors, including judicial bail orders, before depriving a person of liberty."

Final Judgment: Detention Order Set Aside, Detenu Ordered to Be Released

Striking down the High Court’s decision and setting aside the detention order, the Supreme Court ruled: "The detention order is invalid due to the failure of the detaining authority to assess whether bail conditions imposed by the jurisdictional magistrate were sufficient to prevent further offenses. The detenu shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case."

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms that "preventive detention cannot be used as a parallel system of incarceration when a person has already been granted bail with stringent conditions."

By setting aside the COFEPOSA detention order, the judgment ensures that "detaining authorities must provide a clear justification when overriding a judicial bail order and cannot mechanically resort to preventive detention without assessing existing safeguards."

Date of decision: 06/03/2025