https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280604 Detention was upheld because the adverse cases were proximate in time and could not be treated as stale, supporting the authority's inference of habitual offending. The incident was also treated as affecting public order, as the materials showed threats, damage to property, panic, and dispersal of nearby shopkeepers, and the Court found no basis to disturb that subjective satisfaction. The bail reference and the later addition of the property-damage offence did not show non-application of mind. The Court further held that no enforceable violation of Article 22(5) arose from the representation being received one day before governmental approval, so the habeas corpus petition failed. en-us Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 May 2019 11:15:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280604 Detention was upheld because the adverse cases were proximate in time and could not be treated as stale, supporting the authority's inference of habitual offending. The incident was also treated as affecting public order, as the materials showed threats, damage to property, panic, and dispersal of nearby shopkeepers, and the Court found no basis to disturb that subjective satisfaction. The bail reference and the later addition of the property-damage offence did not show non-application of mind. The Court further held that no enforceable violation of Article 22(5) arose from the representation being received one day before governmental approval, so the habeas corpus petition failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280604