https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767058 Preventive detention based on the same smuggling allegations as a pending criminal prosecution was held unsustainable because the detaining authority failed to consider whether the bail conditions imposed by the criminal court were sufficient to prevent further prejudicial activity. The order contained no assessment of the efficacy of those safeguards and no reasons why they were inadequate. References to the NDPS matter were treated only as background, and the challenge based on the COFEPOSA grounds under Section 3(1) did not independently invalidate the detention. The decisive defect was non-application of mind to the bail conditions in the same case. en-us Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Mar 2025 17:41:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767058 Preventive detention based on the same smuggling allegations as a pending criminal prosecution was held unsustainable because the detaining authority failed to consider whether the bail conditions imposed by the criminal court were sufficient to prevent further prejudicial activity. The order contained no assessment of the efficacy of those safeguards and no reasons why they were inadequate. References to the NDPS matter were treated only as background, and the challenge based on the COFEPOSA grounds under Section 3(1) did not independently invalidate the detention. The decisive defect was non-application of mind to the bail conditions in the same case. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767058