<?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>1986 (9) TMI 406 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169340</link>
    <description>Preventive detention under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 was examined on the grounds of relevance of material, proximity of incidents, compliance with statutory safeguards, and alleged excess of authority. The detention was supported by recent and proximate incidents indicating habitual criminal conduct affecting public order, together with pending background cases. The Court treated these materials as sufficient to bring the detenu within the statutory description of an anti-social element, found that the required documents had been supplied, and noted valid State notification of the detention period. Applying the settled test of relevance, proximity, rationality, and reasonableness, it found no basis to interfere and sustained the detention order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (9) TMI 406 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169340</link>
      <description>Preventive detention under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 was examined on the grounds of relevance of material, proximity of incidents, compliance with statutory safeguards, and alleged excess of authority. The detention was supported by recent and proximate incidents indicating habitual criminal conduct affecting public order, together with pending background cases. The Court treated these materials as sufficient to bring the detenu within the statutory description of an anti-social element, found that the required documents had been supplied, and noted valid State notification of the detention period. Applying the settled test of relevance, proximity, rationality, and reasonableness, it found no basis to interfere and sustained the detention order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>