https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195658 A later Article 32 petition is treated as barred where the same detention order and relief were already examined in a habeas corpus challenge, affirmed on appeal under Article 136, and allowed to attain finality; only changed circumstances or new grounds may justify a fresh petition. The note also states that preventive detention is not invalid merely because the order is served while the detenu is in custody, provided the authority knew of the custody, had material showing a realistic possibility of release on bail, and had compelling reasons to detain. On the stated facts, the challenge failed on both maintainability and merits. en-us Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195658 A later Article 32 petition is treated as barred where the same detention order and relief were already examined in a habeas corpus challenge, affirmed on appeal under Article 136, and allowed to attain finality; only changed circumstances or new grounds may justify a fresh petition. The note also states that preventive detention is not invalid merely because the order is served while the detenu is in custody, provided the authority knew of the custody, had material showing a realistic possibility of release on bail, and had compelling reasons to detain. On the stated facts, the challenge failed on both maintainability and merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195658