S.D.BAJAJ, J. - (1.) IN Criminal Writ Petition No. 2358 of 1988 Shrimati Jasbir Kaur wife of detenu Jasbir Singh Virdi has challenged the detention of her husband aforesaid under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sustances Act, 1988, vide order Annexure P-1 based on grounds of detention. Annexure P-2 with effect from 31-10-1988 on the grounds hat the factum pf detenu being already on interim bail with effect from 29-8-1988 was not adverted to by the detaining authority therein or even conside, ed ; that through the same order dated 29-8-1988 passport of the petitioner's husband having been seized, the detenu could not indulge in pre­judicial activities any further and as such there was no justifiable ground for making the order of preventive detention against him and that for the occur­rence of September 1987 provisions of the Act enforced on 4-7-1988 could net be involved by the detaining authority retrospectively.
(2.) IN reply it was asserted that cause of action having not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the criminal writ filed by the detenu's wife; that the factum of detenu being on interim anticipatory bail was duly considered by the detaining authority; that the detaining authority on its subjective satisfaction felt that in spite of it and the seizure of the detentu's passport it was still necessary to order preventive detention of the detenu and that the order Annexure P-l was passed by the detaining authority on due application of mind. Hence, the writ merits dismissal. The firm of Messrs. Vinod Metal Industries 761, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar, under whose name and style the petitioner's husband, detenu Jasbir Singh Virdi, is alleged to have seen through the deal with Messrs. Raja Ram New Fashions of United Kingdom is located at Jalandhar. Residential premises of the detenu bearing No. 296, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar were also searched by the Customs Authorities for the recovery of incriminating material against the detenu at Jalandhar. A part of the cause of action can, therefore certainly be regarded to have arisen at Jalandhar; within the territorial, jurisdic­tion of this Court. The preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction has, there­fore, no legs to stand upon and is consequently overruled. Similar view of the same objection was taken by my learned brother Ujagar Singh, J., in Malook Singh alias Master v. Union of India and another, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1373 of 1988 decided on 12-12-1988. The reasoning set out therein for overruling identical objection would be treated as a part of this judgment for reaching the same conclusion.
(3.) A reference to the order of detention Annexure P-l clearly establishes that the factura of the detenu having been enlarged on interim anticipatory bail with effect from 29-8-1988 was not taken notice of or adverted to by the detaining authority therein. In similar circumstances in Anam Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1987 SC 137, where in their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: ''The one contention sirongly pressed before us by the petitioner's counsel is that the detaining authority was not made aware at the time the detention order was made tbat the detenu had moved applications for bail in the three pending cases and that he was enlarged on bail on 13-1-1986, 14-1-1986 and 15-1-1 86. We have gone through the detention order carefully. There is absolutely no mention in the order about the fact that the petitioner was an undertrial prisoner, that he was arrested in connectioa with the three cases, that applications for bail were pending and that he was released on three successive days in the three cases. This indicates a total absence of application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the order of detention. In our view this is the short manner in which the two cases can be disposed of. If the petitioner is found disturbing law and order or misusing the bail granted to him, the authorities would be at liberty to move the appropriate Court to get the bail orders cancelled. One does not know how the detaining authority would have acted if he was made aware of the above details. We are not satisfied that this is a fit case to record to preventive detention. We refrain from referring to the other grounds urged before us and from examining them. The petitioner is entitled to succeed on the first ground. We hold that there was clear non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority about the fact that the petitioner was granted bail when the order of detention was passed". ;