- (1.) Few facts which need to be taken note of for the purposes of deciding this appeal are recapitulated below. On 11.04.2000, there was a search conducted on the residence of the appellant, though no incriminating material was found therein. However, in some customs case, the husband of the appellant was arrested on 27.07.2003 along with two other co -accused persons. Other co -accused filed bail application which was rejected by the trial court. The said co -accused, thereafter, went to the High Court challenging the order of the trial court dismissing his bail application. The High Court on 29.08.2003 dismissed the said bail application of the co -accused. At the same time, it ordered the trial court to conclude the trial in the aforesaid customs case within six months. Insofar as the husband of the appellant is concerned, he had not made any bail application. The respondent passed order dated 06.10.2003 under Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act') for detention of the husband of the appellant/ detenue herein. As mentioned above, as on that date, the husband of the appellant was in jail and he had not filed any application for bail. The detention order was executed on 29.10.2003 by serving the same upon the husband of the appellant in jail. His representation against the detention order filed by his wife was rejected.
(2.) Thereafter, challenging the detention order, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 1819 of 2003. This writ petition, however, has been dismissed by the High Court of Madras vide the impugned judgment dated 16.08.2004. Though the period of detention as per the aforesaid detention order is over since the respondents have also started proceedings against the husband of the appellant under CFMA, the appellant is pressing this appeal because of the aforesaid reason.
(3.) A neat submission which is made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that when the husband of the appellant was in jail, he had not made any application for bail, there could not have been any apprehension on the part of the respondents/ detaining authority about him indulging in any activity as alleged in the detention order and thus, there was no occasion to pass any preventive detention order in respect of the husband of the appellant who was already in jail.;