https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366139 Preventive detention of persons already in custody requires compelling, case-specific reasons, and the mere possibility of statutory bail was not treated as sufficient where no bail application was pending. The Delhi HC also found the detention orders unsustainable because inconsistencies between the orders and the grounds of detention, together with repetitive, mechanically drafted recitals and factual errors, showed non-application of mind. The statutory saving provision could not cure this foundational defect. Both detention orders were quashed and the detenus were directed to be released from custody. en-us Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 13:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366139 Preventive detention of persons already in custody requires compelling, case-specific reasons, and the mere possibility of statutory bail was not treated as sufficient where no bail application was pending. The Delhi HC also found the detention orders unsustainable because inconsistencies between the orders and the grounds of detention, together with repetitive, mechanically drafted recitals and factual errors, showed non-application of mind. The statutory saving provision could not cure this foundational defect. Both detention orders were quashed and the detenus were directed to be released from custody. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366139