<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (9) TMI 341 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161240</link>
    <description>Preventive detention of persons already in custody is valid when the detaining authority knows of the custody, has reliable material showing a real possibility of release on bail, and reasonably apprehends further prejudicial activity after release; on that basis, custody alone does not invalidate the order. Delay in processing representations will not vitiate detention where the chronology shows prompt movement through the concerned authorities, and a loose use of the word &quot;bailable&quot; does not by itself show non-application of mind. Documents not relied upon in the detention grounds need not be supplied unless their absence causes real prejudice, and technical objections such as alleged discrepancies or retraction issues do not invalidate detention without substantive infirmity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Aug 2021 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 341 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161240</link>
      <description>Preventive detention of persons already in custody is valid when the detaining authority knows of the custody, has reliable material showing a real possibility of release on bail, and reasonably apprehends further prejudicial activity after release; on that basis, custody alone does not invalidate the order. Delay in processing representations will not vitiate detention where the chronology shows prompt movement through the concerned authorities, and a loose use of the word &quot;bailable&quot; does not by itself show non-application of mind. Documents not relied upon in the detention grounds need not be supplied unless their absence causes real prejudice, and technical objections such as alleged discrepancies or retraction issues do not invalidate detention without substantive infirmity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>