https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787463 Article 226 permits pre-execution judicial review of preventive detention orders, but only within narrow self-imposed limits and exceptional grounds such as lack of authority, mistaken identity, wrong purpose, or vague and extraneous grounds. Where the proposed detenue is absconding, has evaded service, and has not surrendered, the Court may refuse to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction, even if proceedings under COFEPOSA and the Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated. Delay alone, or the quashing of a co-accused's detention order, does not justify interference in favour of a person still avoiding the process of law. The pre-execution challenge was therefore not entertained and the writ petition was dismissed. en-us Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Mar 2026 08:30:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787463 Article 226 permits pre-execution judicial review of preventive detention orders, but only within narrow self-imposed limits and exceptional grounds such as lack of authority, mistaken identity, wrong purpose, or vague and extraneous grounds. Where the proposed detenue is absconding, has evaded service, and has not surrendered, the Court may refuse to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction, even if proceedings under COFEPOSA and the Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated. Delay alone, or the quashing of a co-accused's detention order, does not justify interference in favour of a person still avoiding the process of law. The pre-execution challenge was therefore not entertained and the writ petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787463