ORDER : M.M. Punchhi, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu, Vasant Raj Jain. The detenu was apprehended on 3-5-1991 and was found in possession of silver slabs worth Rs 59 lakhs and odd. He was arrested and produced before the local Magistrate within 24 hours. He was released on conditional bail by an order dated 21-5-1991 whereby he was prohibited from leaving the area within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. It appears that while he was so released on bail he was served with as many as four summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to report before the Customs Officers for interrogation. He intimated the Customs Officers that he was not in a position to leave Desuri because of the restriction placed by the learned Magistrate while granting bail. He, however, informed the Customs Officers that he would seek the permission of the court and as soon as the same was granted he would report before the officers in response to the process issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It, however, appears that the restriction on his movement was lifted by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 31-10-1991. The exact text of the order is as under : “Hence, while allowing the application of the accused, they are given exemption from appearing till final disposal through the advocate under Section 183 of Indian Penal Code. Till final disposal the condition of disallowing the accused to leave the jurisdiction is also stayed.” It would thus appear from the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 31-10-1991 that besides lifting the condition in regard to the movement of the accused he also granted them exemption from appearance till the stage of final disposal. The detenu admittedly did not appear before the Customs Officers as originally promised in response to the notices issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 2. In between, the proposal for detention of the accused was mooted on 31-1-1992. The proposal was put before the Screening Committee on 7-3-1992. After the Screening Committee approved the proposal the papers were placed before the authorities concerned for further scrutiny and for taking a decision whether or not to pass an order under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA for the detention of the accused. Ultimately, the detention order impugned in the present proceedings came to be passed on 28-5-1992. After the Screening Committee approved the proposal the papers were placed before the authorities concerned for further scrutiny and for taking a decision whether or not to pass an order under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA for the detention of the accused. Ultimately, the detention order impugned in the present proceedings came to be passed on 28-5-1992. It appears that after the bail order was relaxed by the order dated 31-10-1992 the movements of the detenu were not known to the authorities. It further appears that detenu had been to Bombay and there he was arrested by the Gamdevi Police, Bombay, on 23-9-1992 in a case arising from FIR No 856 of 1992. This fact is not in dispute. It was the Gamdevi Police which informed the authorities that the person, against whom the detention order in question was passed, has been arrested by them in the aforesaid case and they should come to take charge if they desired to detain him. In response to that communication the detention order was served on him on 13-10-1992 and the grounds of detention were also served on him on 16-10-1992. Since then he has been in detention. 3. His brother, the petitioner herein, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition No. 5967 of 1992 in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur questioning the legality and validity of the order made under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA. The detention order was challenged on the ground that there was inordinate delay between his arrest on 3-5-1991, and the passing of the detention order on 28-5-1992, and hence the link had snapped and there was no justification in passing that order. Secondly, it was contended that there was an inordinate delay between the passing of the detention order on 28-5-1992, and its actual execution on 13-10-1992, and there was no valid explanation forthcoming for this inordinate delay and hence the detenu is entitled to be set at liberty. Thirdly, it was contended that subjective satisfaction of the authority passing the detention order was vitiated due to non-application of mind as the authority was not aware of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 31-10-1991, extracted hereinbefore. These three submissions were dealt with by the Division Bench of the High Court and were repelled. It is against that order of the High Court that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of special leave. These three submissions were dealt with by the Division Bench of the High Court and were repelled. It is against that order of the High Court that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of special leave. Independently thereof, the petitioner has also filed a substantive writ petition in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. We will be disposing of both these petitions by this common order. 4. Taking the first point, regarding the delay in making the detention order, it must be realised that after the detenu was arrested he was granted bail by the learned Magistrate on 21-5-1991, albeit with a restriction that he should not leave the area falling within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. Soon thereafter, the customs authorities issued summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act with a view to recording the detenu’s statement. The detenu did not appear in response to these summons on the ground that he was prohibited by the learned Magistrate’s order from leaving Desuri. He, however, promised to appear before the Customs Officers after he obtained permission of the court to leave that area. He moved an application for lifting the embargo against his movement and succeeded in persuading the learned Magistrate to pass the order of 31-10-1991, extracted earlier. Instead of reporting before the customs authorities he appears to have disregarded the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act. When the customs authorities realised that he had left Desuri and his statement could not be recorded under Section 108 they mooted a proposal for his detention on 31-1-1992 and, as stated earlier, after the Screening Committee and the department concerned cleared it, the detention order came to be made on 28-5-1992. It would thus be seen from these facts that throughout the Customs Officers were keen on interrogating the detenu and recording his statement but the detenu did not appear in response to the summons firstly, on the ground that he was prohibited from leaving Desuri and later for no reason whatsoever. That is why the Division Bench of the High Court has come to the conclusion that his behaviour was non-cooperative. That is why the Division Bench of the High Court has come to the conclusion that his behaviour was non-cooperative. It is, therefore, difficult to say that the delay was on account of laxity on the part of the customs authorities although we would have thought that the customs authorities themselves could have moved the learned Magistrate for permitting them to take him outside his jurisdiction. They perhaps relied on the statement of the detenu that he would be moving the learned Magistrate for such an order. He did move, secured an order and slipped out beyond the reach of the Customs Officers. In these circumstances, it is difficult to say that the link had snapped as contended by learned counsel. There was certainly delay but that delay was not on account of the fact that the customs authorities had given up the chase or that they had given up the idea of pursuing the proposal for his detention. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Judges in the High Court were right in repelling this contention. 5. As stated above, after the detenu secured the order of 31-10-1991 he left Desuri and thereafter his whereabouts were not known to the authorities. After the detention order was passed on 28-5-1992 the authorities were on the look out for the detenu but they were not able to execute the order till they heard from Gamdevi Police Station, Bombay, that he had been detained in another case bearing FIR No. 856 of 1992. As soon as they learnt about his whereabouts from the Bombay Police they reached Bombay and executed the detention order on 13-10-1992. The detenu, it appears, was apprehended in similar cases in the past and was, therefore, an experienced hand. The activities of persons engaging in such nefarious economic offences are generally carried on on the sly and having regard to their network in the country it is difficult to locate their movements and keep a close watch on their activities. In the circumstances, after he slipped out from Desuri on the learned Magistrate having lifted the embargo against his movement by the order of 31-10-1991 it was not possible for the authorities to execute the detention order, till they learnt about his presence in Bombay from the Gamdevi Police Station. In the circumstances, after he slipped out from Desuri on the learned Magistrate having lifted the embargo against his movement by the order of 31-10-1991 it was not possible for the authorities to execute the detention order, till they learnt about his presence in Bombay from the Gamdevi Police Station. In the circumstances, we do not think that there was any laxity or indifference on the part of the customs authorities in the matter of executing the detention order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was right in repelling the contention based on this ground. 6. Lastly, it was said that in the grounds of detention it was mentioned that despite the prohibition imposed by the learned Magistrate the detenu left Rani (Rajasthan) and he was located in Bombay on 23-9-1992. It is indeed true that the customs authorities were not aware of the subsequent order passed by the learned Magistrate on 31-10-1991. But the fact remains that whether it was in violation of the earlier order of 21-5-1991 or otherwise, the detenu had left Rajasthan and his whereabouts were not known. It is for that reason that the authorities say that they were not in a position to execute the detention order till he was located in Bombay on 23-9-1992. Therefore, the mere fact that the authorities passing the detention order were not aware of the subsequent order passed by the learned Magistrate on 31-10-1991 has not affected the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority because the detaining authority relied on the fact that the detenu had slipped out of Rajasthan and his whereabouts were not known. Therefore, the fact that the detaining authority was not aware of the subsequent modification in the bail order, cannot vitiate the order of detention impugned in the present proceedings. 7. Reliance was placed by both sides on certain decisions of this Court in which this Court had either confirmed or revoked the detention order on grounds of delay and the like. We do not deem it necessary to analyse these decisions for the reason that we feel that questions of delay and the consequence thereof on the detention order are matters of facts which have to be judged in the circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard and fast rule in this behalf. We do not deem it necessary to analyse these decisions for the reason that we feel that questions of delay and the consequence thereof on the detention order are matters of facts which have to be judged in the circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard and fast rule in this behalf. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are not inclined to think that the live-link had snapped before passing of the detention order and even subsequent thereto till the date of its execution because of the delay at both the stages. We, therefore, do not see any merit in these petitions and dismiss them. Petition dismissed.