https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175322 Preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act could not be sustained where the detention grounds were based on the same facts already subject to pending criminal prosecutions in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Reliance on identical facts for both prosecution and detention rendered the order vitiated, because a preventive detention order fails if any ground is non-existent, irrelevant, or unavailable in law. The Court also found that the detenu lacked a real and effective opportunity to make a representation, since disclosure of his defence on those same facts would prejudice his pending trials. The detention order was held illegal and set aside, with consequential release. en-us Thu, 28 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Feb 2026 21:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175322 Preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act could not be sustained where the detention grounds were based on the same facts already subject to pending criminal prosecutions in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Reliance on identical facts for both prosecution and detention rendered the order vitiated, because a preventive detention order fails if any ground is non-existent, irrelevant, or unavailable in law. The Court also found that the detenu lacked a real and effective opportunity to make a representation, since disclosure of his defence on those same facts would prejudice his pending trials. The detention order was held illegal and set aside, with consequential release. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175322