https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277938 The court held that the second Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus was not maintainable as it did not present new grounds unavailable during the first petition. The principle of finality of decisions was emphasized, leading to the discharge of the Rule. The court did not address the legality of deferred detention as it found the second Writ Petition to be non-maintainable. en-us Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Dec 2018 15:15:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277938 The court held that the second Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus was not maintainable as it did not present new grounds unavailable during the first petition. The principle of finality of decisions was emphasized, leading to the discharge of the Rule. The court did not address the legality of deferred detention as it found the second Writ Petition to be non-maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277938