TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether denial of an effective opportunity to appear before the Advisory Board, or delay in dealing with the later representation, vitiated the detention order. (ii) Whether a detention order could be sustained when the detenu was already in custody without reliable material to show a real likelihood of release on bail and without proper consideration of the statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act.
Issue (i): Whether denial of an effective opportunity to appear before the Advisory Board, or delay in dealing with the later representation, vitiated the detention order.
Analysis: The material on record showed that the detenu had knowledge of the Advisory Board meeting in advance and had communicated the fact to counsel. The claim that the communication was ante-dated or not received in time was not supported by the record. As to delay in considering the later representation, any such delay would, at best, affect continued detention and not automatically invalidate the original order of detention.
Conclusion: This issue was decided against the appellant; the detention order was not invalidated on this ground.
Issue (ii): Whether a detention order could be sustained when the detenu was already in custody without reliable material to show a real likelihood of release on bail and without proper consideration of the statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act.
Analysis: In the case of a detenu already in custody, the detaining authority must be aware of the custody position, must have reliable material showing a real possibility of release on bail, and must also be satisfied that release would probably lead to prejudicial activity. Mere pendency of a bail application is not the same as a real likelihood of release on bail. The statutory restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act had to be borne in mind, and the order did not show adequate application of mind to that requirement.
Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the appellant; the detention order could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the preventive detention order failed the test of lawful subjective satisfaction in a custody case, and the impugned judgment was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a detenu is already in custody, preventive detention can be justified only if the detaining authority has reliable material to conclude that release on bail is realistically likely and that prejudicial activity would probably follow, with due regard to the statutory bail restrictions governing the offence.
TaxTMI 
