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 detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind as the material placed before the detaining authority was voluminous and there was no showing that it had sufficient time to examine it before passing the order. (ii) Whether a preventive detention order could be sustained when the detenu was already in custody and there was no cogent material showing a likely release on bail in the near future.
Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind as the material placed before the detaining authority was voluminous and there was no showing that it had sufficient time to examine it before passing the order.
Analysis: The record placed before the detaining authority contained a large number of documents, including documents dated one day before the detention order. No satisfactory explanation was furnished as to when the material was placed before the authority or whether adequate time was available for proper scrutiny. Where specific pleadings alleging non-application of mind were not denied, the absence of disclosure regarding receipt and examination of the record supported the inference that the subjective satisfaction was not based on due consideration of the entire material.
Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind and could not be sustained on this ground.
Issue (ii): Whether a preventive detention order could be sustained when the detenu was already in custody and there was no cogent material showing a likely release on bail in the near future.
Analysis: The detenu was already in judicial custody and had not moved any bail application. The grounds of detention merely referred to a bare possibility of bail without any material showing a real likelihood of release in the near future. In such circumstances, the requirement of compelling reasons for preventive detention of a person already in custody was not satisfied, because the authority had not shown a genuine and concrete basis for anticipating imminent release and future prejudicial activity.
Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained because the necessary compelling reasons for detaining a person already in custody were absent.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the preventive detention order was quashed, entitling the detenu to release forthwith if not required in any other case.
Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention of a person already in custody requires cogent material showing both a real likelihood of release in the near future and a further likelihood of prejudicial activity thereafter, and the detention order must reflect genuine application of mind to the entire material before the authority.
TaxTMI 
