TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a preventive detention order could be sustained when the detenu was in custody but had already been granted bail and had not availed it; (ii) whether reliance on the retraction statement of co-accused without advertence to their confessional statements vitiated the detention order; (iii) whether the earlier writ petition and its dismissal barred the present challenge on the principle of res judicata.
Issue (i): whether a preventive detention order could be sustained when the detenu was in custody but had already been granted bail and had not availed it.
Analysis: Preventive detention is an exceptional measure, but it is permissible under Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India where the detaining authority forms a subjective satisfaction on relevant material. The grounds of detention expressly recorded the grant of bail and the fact that the detenu had not availed it. In such a situation, the existence of a bail order showed an imminent possibility of release, and the detaining authority's awareness of that circumstance negatived the plea of non-application of mind.
Conclusion: The detention order was valid on this ground and the contention was rejected.
Issue (ii): whether reliance on the retraction statement of co-accused without advertence to their confessional statements vitiated the detention order.
Analysis: The reference in the grounds to the retractions was treated only as a factual narration and not as the basis of the subjective satisfaction. The detenu had been supplied the relevant material, and the omission to separately refer to the confessional statements did not, in the facts of the case, show that an inadmissible or incomplete material was relied upon for detention.
Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated on this ground.
Issue (iii): whether the earlier writ petition and its dismissal barred the present challenge on the principle of res judicata.
Analysis: A prior rejection of a challenge to preventive detention does not automatically bar a later challenge where the matter involves personal liberty and the later proceeding is not shown to be foreclosed by any absolute rule of finality. The earlier dismissal did not prevent examination of the present appeal on merits.
Conclusion: The objection based on res judicata was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The detention order was upheld, and no ground was found to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order can be sustained where the detaining authority is aware of the detenu's custody and existing bail order and forms a subjective satisfaction on relevant material that release is imminent and detention is necessary to prevent prejudicial activity; a mere factual reference to co-accused statements or an earlier challenge does not vitiate the order absent actual reliance on irrelevant material or a legally effective bar.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
