- (1.) VISHNU Sahai, J. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Amir Siddiqui has impugned the order dated 29-10-2001 passed by Mr. Rajendra Shanker Agrawal, Special Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, Government of U. P. detaining him under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act ).
(2.) THE detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 29-10-2001 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 17-11-2001 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to this petition. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In our judgment, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu is not necessary for the decision of this writ petition because it is common ground between Counsel for the parties that when the impugned detention order was passed against the petitioner-detenu, he was on bail in crime No. 9 of 2001 under Sections 132 and 135 (1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and, although the bail application and the bail order pertaining to the said crime number was placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority and the translation of the relevant documents were furnished to the petitioner-detenu in Hindi language, the copy of the bail order and bail application pertaining to the said crime number was not furnished to the petitioner- detenu in Hindi language. We may mention that on the basis of the original file learned Counsel for the respondents has accepted this position. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in oft quoted case of Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and others, with Ibrahim Shareef M. Madhafushi v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1991 SC 2261, in paragraph 12 (6) has observed thus: " (6) In a case where detenu is released on bail and is at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention, then the detaining authority has to necessarily rely upon them as that would be a vital ground for ordering detention. In such a case the bail application and the order granting bail should necessarily be placed before the authority and the copies should also be supplied to the detenu. "
(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would show that were the detenu is on bail at the time of the passing of the detention order, not only it is imperative to place before the detaining authority the bail application and the bail order but, it is equally imperative that their copies be furnished to the detenu. The latter is because then and then alone would the detenu be able to make an effective and purposeful representation in terms of his fundamental right guaranteed by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. In our judgment it is implicit that where the bail application and bail order are in a language with which detenu is not familiar, their copies should be supplied to him in a language known to him because then and then alone would he be able to exercise fundamental right of making an effective and purposeful representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.;