Finality in habeas corpus and preventive detention: a later Article 32 challenge fails, and custody at service does not by itself invalidate detention.

A later Article 32 petition is treated as barred where the same detention order and relief were already examined in a habeas corpus challenge, affirmed on appeal under Article 136, and allowed to attain finality; only changed circumstances or new grounds may justify a fresh petition. The note also states that preventive detention is not invalid merely because the order is served while the detenu is in custody, provided the authority knew of the custody, had material showing a realistic possibility of release on bail, and had compelling reasons to detain. On the stated facts, the challenge failed on both maintainability and merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a subsequent petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was barred after the detenu's habeas corpus challenge to the detention order had already been dismissed by the High Court and the dismissal had been affirmed in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution; (ii) whether the detention order was invalid because it was served while the detenu was in custody and the detaining authority had not properly considered that circumstance.

Issue (i): Whether a subsequent petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was barred after the detenu's habeas corpus challenge to the detention order had already been dismissed by the High Court and the dismissal had been affirmed in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Analysis: A petition under Article 32 is not barred merely because an earlier habeas corpus petition under Article 226 was dismissed, but finality attaches where the same detention order and the same relief have already been examined by the High Court and then carried in appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136. A decision of competent jurisdiction, once affirmed in appeal and allowed to attain finality, cannot be re-agitated in a fresh Article 32 proceeding on the same facts. The Court also clarified that a later Article 32 petition may lie if there are changed circumstances or new grounds, but not where the very ground urged was available earlier and had already been canvassed.

Conclusion: The subsequent petition under Article 32 was not maintainable and was barred on the principle of finality.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention order was invalid because it was served while the detenu was in custody and the detaining authority had not properly considered that circumstance.

Analysis: Preventive detention may in appropriate cases be ordered even against a person already in custody, but only where the authority is aware of the custody, there is reliable material showing a real possibility of release on bail, and there are compelling reasons to detain. On the facts here, the detenu had been released on bail before the detention order was passed, later absconded, and was served with the order while in custody only after the authorities traced him. The remand was temporary, release remained possible, and the bail granted in the customs case had not been cancelled. The plea that custody at the time of service invalidated the order therefore did not establish any illegality.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated on the ground that it was served during custody or for want of proper consideration of custody.

Final Conclusion: The detention challenge failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A detention order finally upheld in an earlier proceeding under Article 136 cannot be re-challenged under Article 32 on the same grounds, and custody at the time of service does not by itself invalidate a preventive detention order where the authority had validly passed it and release remained a realistic possibility.

---