https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463735 The HC quashed the preventive detention orders, holding they were vitiated by failure of the Sponsoring Authority to place material facts-notably an FIR against officials of the Narcotics Cell-before the Detaining Authority. The court found absence of requisite subjective satisfaction given the petitioner's prior conviction under NDPS Section 21(c), pending trial on related commercial-quantity charges, dismissal of bail in the fourth FIR, and an unexplained delay of over two years in issuing the detention. The detention orders dated 31 August 2023 and 29 November 2023 were set aside. en-us Fri, 06 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2025 14:26:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463735 The HC quashed the preventive detention orders, holding they were vitiated by failure of the Sponsoring Authority to place material facts-notably an FIR against officials of the Narcotics Cell-before the Detaining Authority. The court found absence of requisite subjective satisfaction given the petitioner's prior conviction under NDPS Section 21(c), pending trial on related commercial-quantity charges, dismissal of bail in the fourth FIR, and an unexplained delay of over two years in issuing the detention. The detention orders dated 31 August 2023 and 29 November 2023 were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463735