https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458002 Preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act was examined on three grounds. Non-placement of the earliest bail application did not vitiate the detention order because the material fact of retraction of the confession was otherwise before the detaining authority through contemporaneous records, so there was no non-application of mind. The order was not vague, as the language used to describe dealing in smuggled goods tracked section 3(1)(iv) and sufficiently identified the prohibited activity. Service of the order while the detenu was in judicial custody was not invalid because the custody was temporary and release on bail remained imminently possible. en-us Wed, 09 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2024 11:14:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458002 Preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act was examined on three grounds. Non-placement of the earliest bail application did not vitiate the detention order because the material fact of retraction of the confession was otherwise before the detaining authority through contemporaneous records, so there was no non-application of mind. The order was not vague, as the language used to describe dealing in smuggled goods tracked section 3(1)(iv) and sufficiently identified the prohibited activity. Service of the order while the detenu was in judicial custody was not invalid because the custody was temporary and release on bail remained imminently possible. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458002