JUDGMENT Giridhar Malaviya, J. 1. These two petitions have been filed challenging the detention of the petitioners in pursuance of detention order date 21-8-1989 passed against the petitioners by the State of U. P. under Section 3 (1) (ii) and (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The grounds of detention indicate that on 31-5-1989 the Custom Officials of Gorakhpur had spotted a jeep No. U. T. R. 4083 at Shahjanwa road slightly away from Naugarh from which certain gunny bags were being unloaded. The jeep was surrounded by the custom officials. When the custom officials enquired about the goods which were inside the gunny bags, the occupants of the jeep said that the gunny bags contained foreign chains for pants (zip fasteners) and foreign made buttons made of steel, The custom officials took the jeep to their office along with its driver and cleaner and the two persons travelling on it. The driver was Hari Sewak and the cleaner was Rajendra and the two occupants were the petitioners, Rajendra and Pawan Kumar. The articles from the gunny bags were examined in presence of two independent witnesses. 37,200 imported chains (zip fasteners) and 712 bags of 5 gross each of steel buttons were found from the gunny bags, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 2,48,300/-. When the custom authorities demanded the permit or certificate entitling the petitioners to import these foreign goods into the country, the petitioners failed to produce any such certificate to the authorities. Being satisfied that the aforesaid articles had been illegally imported, the articles were seized and its recovery memo was prepared on 31-5-198 itself. 2. In the statement made by Pawan Kumar, the petitioner, before the custom officials on 31-5-1989, he admitted the recovery of the above mentioned articles from the said jeep. He also stated that he used to collect these imported goods gradually and when his collection was worth Rs. 1,50,000/- then he, according to his own convenience, used to take it to Kanpur where he sold it in the market. Pawan Kumar also stated that the driver and cleaner of the jeep had no idea that there were imported goods in the gunny bags as at the relevant time he had given Rs. 10/- to the driver and cleaner to have tea etc. Pawan Kumar also stated that the driver and cleaner of the jeep had no idea that there were imported goods in the gunny bags as at the relevant time he had given Rs. 10/- to the driver and cleaner to have tea etc. so that they may not know about the goods loaded on the jeep. When they returned and enquired what was in the gunny bags, he told them that the bags had been filled up with general merchandise etc. Pawan Kumar said that the jeep had been hired at Rs. 150/- for travelling from Ramkola to Gorakhpur. Pawan Kumar, however, also stated that the other petitioner, Rajendra, had full knowledge of the fact that they were carrying the goods to INdia and that for travelling with him from Ramkola to Gorakhpur he would be getting Rs. 500/- for each of the trips to be made. Pawan Kumar admitted that he had been indulging in this activity for the last two years and had put his entire investments in purchasing these foreign goods which he used to sell sometime in Moolganj market of Kanpur and sometimes in Sadar Bazar of Delhi and for each of the trips he earned Rs. 10,000/-. He further admitted that he used to keep the imported goods in the godown of Doctor Sahab near Govind Cinema which he hired for Rs. 125/- per month. He also admitted that to store imported goods in Gorakhpur he had hired a godown at Sabjanwa Road also for which he had paid Rs. 300/- as rent for six months to its owner in one instalment. He also disclosed that none of the owners of the two godowns knew that he was keeping smuggled goods of foreign origin in their godowns. The petitioner, Pawan Kumar also admitted that during the last two years he had taken the smuggled goods to Delhi on 20 or 21 occasions. Pawan Kumar corroborated the statement made by him on 31-5-1989 as also when he made a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 1-6-1989. The other petitioner, Rajendra, also in his voluntary statement on 31-5-1989 admitted the recovery of the goods mentioned above from the said jeep. He also admitted that Pawan Kumar had paid him Rs. 500/- for this trip which he had undertaken with Pawan Kumar for the first time. The other petitioner, Rajendra, also in his voluntary statement on 31-5-1989 admitted the recovery of the goods mentioned above from the said jeep. He also admitted that Pawan Kumar had paid him Rs. 500/- for this trip which he had undertaken with Pawan Kumar for the first time. He corroborated the statement of Pawan Kumar on all particular materials and further corroborated his statement dated 31-5-1989 when he made statement under Section 108 of Customs Act on 1-6-1989. The cleaner of the jeep, Rajeshwar, and the driver of the jeep, Hari Sewak, also in their statements dated 31-5-1989 made to the custom officials admitted the recovery of the foreign goods as has been mentioned above, but showed their ignorance about the fact that the goods put in the jeep were the goods of foreign origin. 3. On the basis of the above mentioned materials the State Government was satisfied that the petitioners were engaging themselves in smuggling goods and in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods and since it was necessary to prevent them to indulge in similar activities in future, the order of detention was passed against them. The State Government had along with the grounds of the detention furnished all the materials mentioned above to the petitioners, but had mentioned in the grounds of detention that the proposal made by the custom officials as also the preamable were the secret documents and since its supply was not in the public interest, these two documents were not furnished to the petitioners. 4. Counter affidavits on behalf of the State Government as well as Union of India have been filed. We have heard Sri G. C. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Prem Prakash, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri Sishir Kumar on behalf of Union of India in this case. As both the petitions have common grounds of detention hence both the petitions are being disposed of by one common judgment. 5. Sri G. C. Saxena contends that the detention of the petitioners is vitiated as the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority was not real as the order of detention does not show that the detaining authority had considered the facts of the bail application moved by the petitioners which had been allowed and that the petitioners were from persons. Sri G. C. Saxena contends that the detention of the petitioners is vitiated as the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority was not real as the order of detention does not show that the detaining authority had considered the facts of the bail application moved by the petitioners which had been allowed and that the petitioners were from persons. SRI Saxena further argues that the activity of the petitioners was of 13th May, 1989 whereas the detention order was actually passed on 21-8-1989, hence there is no proximity. SRI Saxena has thirdly contended that the solitary incident giving rise to the detention of the petitioners is bad and should vitiate the satisfaction of the detaining authority. 6. Taking up the first submission of Sri G. C. Saxena we do not think that the non-consideration of the contents of the bail application and the order granting bail can be of any consequence in this case inasmuch as the counsel for the petitioners has appended the order by which the petitioners were released. A perusal of the said order indicates that the bails were granted to the petitioners only on the grounds that the custom authorities were not competent to effect arrest, search and seizure. However, the bail order did not indicate that the activity of the petitioners was found to be doubtful in any manner. If the detention authority has merely not considered this aspect of the matter that the arrest etc. of the petitioners by the customs authorities may not have been in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Customs Act that cannot in any manner effect the real activity of the petitioners which we find was relevant for the detention order. Coming to the point about proximity of the order of detention we find that the petitioners were granted bail on 17th June, 1989. It is undisputed that it is only after the petitioners were set free that there could be any question for considering whether they should have been preventively detained by the concerned authority or not. Coming to the point about proximity of the order of detention we find that the petitioners were granted bail on 17th June, 1989. It is undisputed that it is only after the petitioners were set free that there could be any question for considering whether they should have been preventively detained by the concerned authority or not. If on 17th June, 1989 the custom authorities thought that the Government should consider the case of the petitioners from the point of view whether the petitioners were posing a real threat, requiring an action under COFEPOSA then the time taken by the custom authority in making such a proposal to the government, the government considering the same at various levels and then ultimately passing the order of detention, was bound to take a comparatively long time. The period of about two months in passing the detention order, in our opinion, cannot be treated as a very long time so as to render it bad on the point of proximity. Consequently, this contention of the learned counsel also lacks merit. 7. Sri G. C. Saxena then contended that the solitary incident of the smuggling dated 31-5-1989 could not be made the basis of detaining the petitioners. So long as the activity assigned to Pawan Kumar is concerned, we are afraid he cannot be given the benefit of the solitary activity. As has been noted above Pawan Kumar admitted that he had been indulged in that type of activities for two years preceding his arrest and had made not less then 20 or 22 trips smuggling the imported goods. When a person indulges in this type of activity it is clear that he organises a chain to carry out his plan to effect smuggling by involving so many persons. No person would be importing smuggled goods of foreign origin unless he had already contacted the persons who would help him in the matter of smuggling and getting him good profit out of his trips. It is for this reason that in such cases courts have found that the solitary activity of a person is enough to guage the tendency of such a person which could be indicative of the fact that if the person was not prevented by putting him under custody he might prove to be a potential threat for smuggling etc. It is for this reason that in such cases courts have found that the solitary activity of a person is enough to guage the tendency of such a person which could be indicative of the fact that if the person was not prevented by putting him under custody he might prove to be a potential threat for smuggling etc. Consequently the contention of the learned counsel that the detention order of Pawan Kumar is bad on account of his solitary activity of 31st May, 1989 cannot be accepted. 8. However, we feel that so far as the activity of Rajendra, the other petitioner, is concerned, from the statements of both Pawan Kumar and Rajendra which we also have checked from the record of the State Government, that although Rajendra had been living in the vicinity of Pawan Kumar it was for the first time that Pawan Kumar had lured Rajendra to join him in activity of smuggling for which he was to get Rs. 500/- for every trip whenever he joined him in smuggling. It was just a matter of chance that on the very first trip Rajendra was nabbed along with Pawan Kumar and as such his design to indulge in illegal activity was frustrated on the first attempt. In any case by this solitary activity it cannot be said that Rajendra bad also the tendency of indulging in this type of activity and after being nabbed he could repeat the same in future also. Sri Prem Prakash, however, said that a solitary activity has been taken as a valid ground for detaining a person who has indulged in smuggling activities. Although it is true that a person can be detained for his solitary activity but in all such cases the person himself has to be found to be a part of some gang or group involved in the smuggling of the foreign goods. As indicated above Rajendra who indulged in the instant smuggling might have made up his mind to engage himself in smuggling of the foreign goods etc. but it seems that before his activity could develop as a tendency for the work he had just undertaken he found that the activity had landed him in jail which very well could act as a deterest to indulge in similar activity again. but it seems that before his activity could develop as a tendency for the work he had just undertaken he found that the activity had landed him in jail which very well could act as a deterest to indulge in similar activity again. We think that the detention of Rajendra on the basis of his maiden venture in the company of Pawan Kumar was not indicative of his tendency to repeat such an activity in future also with the result that his detention under the provisions of COFEPOSA was not justified. The result is that Habeas Corpus Petition No. 20979 of 1989 (Rajendra v. State of U. P. and others) is allowed. Rajendra shall be set at liberty forthwith unless he is wanted in some other case. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 20981 of 1989 (Pawan Kumar v. State of U. P. and others) is dismissed.