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: Whether an order of preventive detention could be sustained against a detenu already in custody when the record did not disclose cogent material showing a real and imminent possibility of release on bail and a corresponding likelihood of prejudicial activity.
Analysis: Preventive detention of a person in custody is not barred in every case, but it is valid only when the detaining authority is aware of the custody, has reliable material to form the belief that release on bail is possible, and further has material to show that on such release the detenu would probably indulge in prejudicial acts. A mere assertion that bail may be granted in similar cases, without any material showing that the detenu was likely to move a fresh application or that release was imminent, is only an ipse dixit and does not satisfy the settled legal test. On the facts, the prior bail applications had already failed or been withdrawn, and nothing on record supported the conclusion that bail was likely in the near future.
Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention of a person in custody requires reliable material showing both a real imminent possibility of release on bail and a consequent likelihood of prejudicial conduct; a bare, unsupported apprehension is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
