JUDGMENT Satya Brata Sanyal, J. This is an application for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus commanding the release of the petitioner detained under section 31 (1) or the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention or Smuggling Activities Act. 2. At the time of admission 8 question of maintainability of the writ petition was raised since the petitioner does not appear to be an Indian citizen. 3. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad appearing for the petitioner submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution refers to person and not citizen unlike Article 19. The detention of a person, therefore, must be in consonance with Article 21. A person in Article 21 will include a citizen as well as a non-citizen. I find force in the argument of learned counsel and Mr. Kamlapati Singh also agrees that in view of the decision in Anwar vs. State of J & K, it cannot be said that a writ petition is not maintainable on behalf of a foreign person. 4. Mr. Prasad thereafter raised a few points in support of the release of the petitioner but the point which impressed me most is founded upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Sita Ram Somani vs. The State of Rajasthan and others. The point is that the recovery and the statement admitting the quilt have all been retracted but this was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority even though this was a relevant material before taking a decision whether it was necessary to detain the appellant under the COFEPOSA Act. The State in its counter-affidavit (paragraph 5) has admitted that these were not brought to the notice of the detaining authority as it was not necessary to do so. It is, therefore, an admitted position that circumstance under which the confession was made, namely, forcibly by causing severe injuries on his person, as would be found from the order-sheet of the criminal case, and the retraction of the statement made before the police were never before the detaining authority when the order for detention was passed on 24.11.64. It may be stated here that the petitioner was arrested on 1.6.64 with contraband gold and was released on bail on 22.6.84. It may be stated here that the petitioner was arrested on 1.6.64 with contraband gold and was released on bail on 22.6.84. In the case or Sri Sita Ram Somani (supra) it was held in a similar circumstance, where also retraction of the confessional 6tatemont was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority, that the retraction of a confession is relevant material and the application of the mind of the detaining authority to the relevant material is a relevant consideration. "If it did not, the appellant would be entitled to be released". 5. I find that the present case is fully covered by the decision in Shri Sita Ram Somani case (supra). I, therefore, quash the order of detention of the petitioner (Annexure 1) and direct the respondents to forthwith release the petitioner if be is not required in any other case. The application is accordingly allowed. 6. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Superintendent, Special Jail, Bhagalpur, to abide by the directions contained in the order. Application allowed.