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 the preventive detention orders were vitiated for want of cogent material showing an imminent possibility of the detenus' release on bail while they were already in judicial custody; and (ii) whether non-placement and non-consideration of the retraction petition of the witness Anand before the detaining authority vitiated the detention orders.
Issue (i): whether the preventive detention orders were vitiated for want of cogent material showing an imminent possibility of the detenus' release on bail while they were already in judicial custody.
Analysis: Preventive detention against a person already in custody is sustainable only when the detaining authority is aware of the custody and is satisfied on the basis of reliable material that there exists a real and imminent possibility of release on bail and, on such release, prejudicial activity is likely to continue. A bare assertion that release on bail is imminent, without any supporting material or pending bail application, is mere ipse dixit. The grounds recorded in the detention orders did not disclose any cogent basis for the conclusion that release on bail was imminent.
Conclusion: The detention orders were unsustainable on this ground and this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (ii): whether non-placement and non-consideration of the retraction petition of the witness Anand before the detaining authority vitiated the detention orders.
Analysis: Relevant material that may affect the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be placed before and considered by it. Where a document relied upon in the detention process is incorrectly described and the actual retraction material is not before the authority, the satisfaction is rendered incomplete and defective. The failure to place the retraction petition before the detaining authority deprived it of a germane material circumstance.
Conclusion: The detention orders were vitiated on this ground as well and this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The preventive detention orders were quashed and the detenus were directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and the writ petition was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order against a person already in custody requires reliable, cogent material demonstrating a real and imminent likelihood of release on bail and must be founded on full consideration of all germane material; otherwise, the order is liable to be struck down as the product of mere ipse dixit and incomplete subjective satisfaction.
TaxTMI 
