1 wp311310 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3113 OF 2010 Chandrakanta ...Petitioner (Detenu) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Bansal Verma i/by Mr. N.P. Shukla for the Petitioner Mr. D.P. Adsule, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANALE, JJ. DATE: 19TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C.:- By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Detention Order passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, and Detaining Authority, dated 13th July, 2010 against the petitioner has been assailed. 2 wp311310 2. The sole argument which is canvased before this Court is that on perusal of the Detention Order, it is amply clear that the same has been passed very casually and is vitiated on account of non-application of mind. It is argued that the Detaining Authority has merely reproduced the language of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act of 1974, which refers to the activities contained in Clause (iii) thereof. The said clause refers to activities of engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. The impugned order reproduces the same terminology as is noticed from the Detention Order in question. The Division Bench of our High Court has recently considered identical challenge at the instance of co-detenu. One of us (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) was a party to the said decision in the case of Naresh Kumar Sachadeva in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2530 of 2010 decided on September 9, 2010. The Detention Order passed against the co-detenu, which is identical to the Detention Order which is impugned before us came to be set aside for the reasons mentioned in the said decision which applies on all fours to the case on hand. Therefore, this petition ought to succeed. 3. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, the impugned Detention Order dated 13th July, 2010 is quashed and set aside, and the 3 wp311310 respondents are directed to set the petitioner, Mrs. Chandrakanta, at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other criminal case. Ordered accordingly. A.P. BHANGALE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.