WP(Crl.) No. 206 OF 2006 1

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION   

       WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 206 OF 2006

TAZA SARBAZ ..  PETITIONER(S)

vs.

THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

      1.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. We are told by the learned counsel for the State of  

Jammu and Kashmir that the petitioner has indeed undergone  

more than ten years of the sentence under Section 25(1A)  

of the Arms Act, 1959, for which he had been prosecuted.  

In other words, as of today, the petitioner has served out  

the maximum sentence that could be awarded to him.  We  

also see from the detention orders passed from time to  

time including the last one dated 25th January, 2010, which  

states that the petitioner had been detained for a period  

of 24 months or till arrangements for his deportation to  

his native country are made, whichever was earlier.  The  

learned State counsel very fairly states that no attempts

WP(Crl.) No. 206 OF 2006 2

had  been  made  so  far  to  deport  the  petitioner  to  his  

native  country  i.e.  Afghanistan.   We  have  gone  through  

several detention orders in which identical directions has  

been made but admittedly no steps have been taken to carry  

out the directives. Our attention has also been drawn to  

the  opinion  of  the  Advisory  Board  dated  18th February,  

2000,  by  the  learned  Amicus  Curiae  when  the  Board  had  

reluctantly approved the detention of the petitioner for  

another period of 24 months but it had been specifically  

directed that the continued detention of the petitioner  

was unbecoming as no efforts had been made for deporting  

him. We also notice that all the orders of the Advisory  

Board  have not been placed on record and we are thus  

unable to see whether such directions had been made in  

them  as  well.   Unfortunately,  even  the  order  of  18th  

February, 2000, has not been honoured by the respondents  

and  the  only  justification  given  now  by  the  learned  

counsel is that as the prosecution under the Arms Act was  

pending against the petitioner, he could not be deported.  

We find this argument to be untenable at this stage and is  

redundant as well because the maximum sentence that could  

be imposed on the petitioner has already been undergone by  

him.

3. We, accordingly, direct that the petitioner shall be

WP(Crl.) No. 206 OF 2006 3

deported to Afghanistan, his home country within a period  

of  three  months  from  today  in  accordance  with  the  

directions  which  have  been  given  by  this  Court  in  a  

similar matter i.e. Bhim Singh v. Union of India & Ors. in  

Writ Petition No. 310 of 2005 decided on 20th September,  

2007.

4. We also make it clear that if this order is not  

complied with we will consider burdening the respondents  

with very heavy compensation for the continued detention  

of  the  petitioner  and  pass  other  orders  as  well.  

Compliance  report  be  submitted  within  four  months  from  

today.

5. The  petition  is,  accordingly,  disposed  of  as  

infructuous.

6. Fee of Amicus is fixed at Rs. 7,000/-.

                   .......................J.          (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

                   .......................J.

                                (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) New Delhi,

    October 05, 2010.