Fahim Ibrahim Waghoo vs Union Of India And Ors.

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 04.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010372142025
+ W.P.(CRL) 1879/2025, CRL.M.A. 17623/2025 & CRL.M.A.
34834/2026
FAHIM IBRAHIM WAGHOO .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Madhav Khurana, Sr.Adv.
with Mr.Shreeyash U. Lalit,
Mr.Himanshu Vats, Mr.Angad
Pahel and Mr.Lavam Tyagi,
Advs. along with petitioner
present in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Amit Tiwari, CGSC,
Ms.Ayushi Srivastava,
Mr.Arpan Narwal,
Mr.Kushagra Malik, Mr.Ujjwal
Tyagi, Advs. for R-1 & 2.
Mr.Aditya Singla, SSC for
CBIC with Mr.Nehaol Sri.
L.V., Adv. for R-3 along with
Mr.H. P. Meena, SIO,
Mr.Shivam Rai, IO, Mr.Sanket
Devlekar, ACP, Mumbai &
Mr.Tejas Sawant, API, HC
Ajay Sable and HC Ankur
Shingde
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHARDWAJ
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 1879/2025 Page 1 of 8
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR RAY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:44

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition was being repeatedly adjourned, after a protection
order was granted to the petitioner against his detention, to verify the
present whereabouts of the petitioner and to assure ourselves that he is
not an absconder. While the petitioner kept maintaining that he was
available at the address given by him, the respondents, on repeated
verifications, found that he was not available at the given address.
Finally, by our order dated 17.09.2026, we directed the petitioner to
appear before us in-person today.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the petitioner
was indeed present in-person. However, it appears that during the
course of hearing, when we made certain remarks that we may not be
finding merit in the present petition and realising that in the
eventuality of the petition being dismissed, he may be detained, he
removed himself from the Court and was no longer available in Court.
We may note that he never sought permission of this Court to leave.
3. We further find that, in our order dated 04.05.2026, we had
directed the petitioner to share his mobile number with the officers of
the respondents. He shared the mobile number and the respondents
filed a report that on investigation, it was found that there was no
activity of incoming or outgoing calls observed on the said mobile
number since its activation. The same is now admitted in the
application filed by the petitioner, that is, CRL. M.A. 34834/2026.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks to explain
the same by stating that the said mobile number was taken by the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 1879/2025 Page 2 of 8
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR RAY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:44

petitioner specifically for receiving the calls from the officers of the
DRI, for verification.
5. We cannot accept the said conduct. We had asked him to share
his mobile number with the respondents so that it can be verified that
he has never absconded and has in fact been available at the given
address.
6. We must also note that earlier, a petition was filed by the
petitioner, that is, W.P.(Crl.) 95/2020 before this Court, which had
been withdrawn by the petitioner on 24.12.2020. The order reads as
under:-
“ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the address furnished by the petitioner in
the writ petition is the same at which the show
cause notice under Section 154 of the Customs
Act, 1962 was issued to the petitioner and
accepted by the petitioner. Learned counsel
further states that during the pendency of this
petition another notice under the Smugglers
and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act,
1976, has also been issued to the petitioner at
the same address and served on the petitioner.
On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned
counsel submits that whenever an endeavour is
made to serve the Detention Order upon the
petitioner at the said address, he has not been
found. He submits that proceedings under
Section 7(1)(a) and 7(l)(b) of the COFEPOSA
Act have also been initiated against the
petitioner· since he is not found at the said
address despite efforts. He further submits that
Look Out Circular (LOC) has also been issued
against the petitioner on 12.3.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave
to withdraw this petition.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 1879/2025 Page 3 of 8
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR RAY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner shall raise all his pleas in the
eventuality of his being detained in terms of
the detention order.
The petition is hereby dismissed as
withdrawn. ”
7. The petitioner could not be detained as the respondents submits
that his whereabouts could not be found and he was absconding.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court by way
of a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 194/2022, which was
disposed of by order dated 19.08.2022. The order reads as under:-
“ Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking the
following relief:-
(a) That, this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to issue any
appropriate Writ, Order or
direction quashing and setting
aside the impugned order of
detention bearing No. Pd-
12001/39/2019 - COFEPOSA
dated 12.07.2019 issued by
Respondent No. 2 against the
Petitioner, with consequential
reliefs.”
3. Reply-affidavit is tendered on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. It is tendered today on
behalf of the Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence. Reply filed by Respondent Nos. 1
& 2 is already on record. The Learned
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 has
brought to our notice the order passed by the
Division Bench of Delhi High Court dated 24
December 2020 which reads thus:-
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 1879/2025 Page 4 of 8
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR RAY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:44

24.12.2020
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the address furnished
by the petitioner in the writ
petition is the same at which the
show cause notice under Section
154 of the Customs Act, 1962 was
issued to the petitioner and
accepted by the petitioner.
Learned counsel further states that
during the pendency of this
petition another notice under the
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange
Manipulators Act, 1976, has also
been issued to the petitioner at the
same address and served on the
petitioner.
On the other hand, Mr. Ravi
Prakash, learned counsel submits
that whenever an endeavour is
made to serve the Detention Order
upon the petitioner at the said
address, he has not been found. He
submits that proceedings under
Section 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) of the
COFEPOSA Act also been
initiated against the petitioner
since he is not found at the said
address despite efforts. He further
submits that Look Out Circular
(LOC) has also been issued
against the petitioner on
12.3.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks leave to withdraw this
petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner shall
raise all his pleas in the
eventuality of his being detained in
terms of the detention order.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 1879/2025 Page 5 of 8
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR RAY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:44

The petition is hereby dismissed as
withdrawn."
The order is self explanatory. The Petitioner
had withdrawn the Petition with liberty to
raise all his pleas in the eventuality of his
being detained in terms of the detention order.
It is an admitted position before us that the
Petitioner is not yet detained. According to the
Respondents, the Petitioner is absconding.
Therefore, the Petition as filed cannot be
considered and is disposed of. ”
8. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court by way of
SLP (Crl.) No. 10396/2022, wherein, by an order dated 14.11.2022,
the Supreme Court granted protection against detention to the
petitioner. The said SLP, however, came to be dismissed by the
Supreme Court, finding no merit in the same, vide order dated
28.01.2025, which reads as under:
“ We are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order. However, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent(s) is directed to
serve a copy of the detention order to learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner within a
period of two weeks from today.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
is granted liberty to opt for the remedy in the
manner known to law.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
”
9. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner was
supplied with the Detention Order and has filed the present petition
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 1879/2025 Page 6 of 8
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR RAY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:44

challenging the same.
10. We, by our order dated 30.05.2025, again granted protection to
the petitioner against the execution of the Detention Order. However,
on the objection of the respondents that the petitioner is, in fact,
absconding and is therefore not entitled to any relief, the above
exercise of ascertaining his whereabouts and his address, etc., was
conducted.
11. From what has transpired in the course of this petition and has
been recorded by us hereinabove, we are fully satisfied that the
petitioner is not subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of this Court,
and in view of our judgment in Shri Vinod Kumar Pathror v. Union
of India and Anr. 2026:DHC:1749-DB, he is not entitled to invoke
our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. We may quote from the said judgment as under:
“ 40. From the above, it can be gathered that
while an order of preventive detention can be
challenged at a pre-execution stage, the Court
in its discretion can refuse to exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in favour of a detenue
who is absconding from law.
xxx
43. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we
refuse to exercise our jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India at a
pre-execution stage. We, however, keep it open
to the petitioner to challenge the Impugned
Order in accordance with law after he has
surrendered to the same. ”
12. We must also note that while the present order was almost fully
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 1879/2025 Page 7 of 8
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR RAY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:44

dictated, the petitioner has re-appeared in-person in the Court,
however, we still cannot condone his actions.
13. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. The pending
applications are also disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no
orders as to costs.
14. A copy of this Order be given dasti under the signatures of the
Court Master.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
ARUN BHARDWAJ, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026/akr/si/pb
At later stage
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner mentions the matter to
state that he is getting his Vakalatnama signed from the petitioner for
further proceedings. The Vakalatnama has been signed by the
petitioner in our presence.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
ARUN BHARDWAJ, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026/akr/si/pb
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 1879/2025 Page 8 of 8
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR RAY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
17:44