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 the preventive detention order was liable to be set aside for non-application of mind because, at the time of the order, there was no cogent material to support a conclusion that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and would again indulge in prejudicial activities.
Analysis: The detenu was already in judicial custody and his repeated bail applications had been rejected by the trial court, sessions court and the High Court before the detention order was passed. The detaining authority nevertheless recorded a bare possibility of release on bail without demonstrating any supporting material. In preventive detention matters, custody by itself does not invalidate detention, but the authority must show awareness of custody and reach a reasoned satisfaction on cogent material that release is likely and that detention is necessary to prevent future prejudicial conduct. On the facts, that required satisfaction was absent, and the record did not show a proper application of mind to the real prospect of release.
Conclusion: The detention order was invalid for non-application of mind and was liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order against a person already in custody is sustainable only if the detaining authority, on cogent material, reasonably concludes that release on bail is likely and that detention is necessary to prevent future prejudicial activity; a bare or unsupported assertion of possible release is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
