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 an order of preventive detention can validly be made against a person already in custody. (ii) Whether the detention order was sustainable when the grounds did not disclose compelling reasons or a real prospect of imminent release from custody.
Issue (i): Whether an order of preventive detention can validly be made against a person already in custody.
Analysis: Preventive detention does not cease to be legally possible merely because the proposed detenu is already in custody. The validity of such an order depends on the facts of the case. The detaining authority must be aware of the existing custody and must record compelling reasons justifying detention despite that custody. Those reasons must be supported by cogent material showing a likelihood of release in the near future and a need to prevent prejudicial activity after such release.
Conclusion: Yes. Preventive detention of a person already in custody is permissible only where awareness of custody and compelling reasons supported by cogent material are shown.
Issue (ii): Whether the detention order was sustainable when the grounds did not disclose compelling reasons or a real prospect of imminent release from custody.
Analysis: The grounds of detention showed that the appellants were in custody, but they did not indicate any apprehension that further remand would be refused or that release on the stated date was likely. The material instead showed that bail had already been rejected shortly before the detention order. In the absence of any recorded basis for expecting imminent release, the necessary compelling reasons were not established.
Conclusion: No. The detention order was unsustainable and had to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The preventive detention orders could not stand on the material recorded, and the appellants were entitled to be released.
Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order against a person already in custody is valid only if the detaining authority is aware of the custody and records compelling reasons, supported by cogent material, showing a real likelihood of imminent release and a necessity to prevent prejudicial conduct thereafter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
