https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182558 Preventive detention under narcotics law was sustained because the record showed the detaining authority was aware of the pending prosecution, the bail application, and the detenue's custody status; the reference to likely future prosecution did not establish non-application of mind. The challenge based on delay in dealing with the representation also failed, as the movement of the papers through jail and departmental channels, intervening holidays, postal transmission, and the need for further comments were found satisfactorily explained. No violation of Article 22(5) was made out, and the detention order was upheld. en-us Thu, 03 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 May 2016 12:10:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182558 Preventive detention under narcotics law was sustained because the record showed the detaining authority was aware of the pending prosecution, the bail application, and the detenue's custody status; the reference to likely future prosecution did not establish non-application of mind. The challenge based on delay in dealing with the representation also failed, as the movement of the papers through jail and departmental channels, intervening holidays, postal transmission, and the need for further comments were found satisfactorily explained. No violation of Article 22(5) was made out, and the detention order was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 03 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182558