TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (11) TMI 1260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....85 (for short 'the Act')-The appellants prayed for being released on bail, but the Addl. District Judge, Neemuch, rejected the application. Subsequently however they were detained under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short 'the PITNDPS Act') by order dated 5.6.1997. The record depicts that the grounds of detention were communicated to the appellants within the stipulated time and subsequently by order dated 17.8.1997 their detention has been confirmed. The appellants moved the High Court on the ground that it was illegal and invalid as the detaining authority passed the order mechanically and without application of mind and that facts do not just....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut be quashed. In Kamarunnissa's case (supra) this Court was pleased to observe thus:- The decisions of this Court to which our attention was drawn by the learned Counsel for the petitioners lay down in no uncertain terms that detention orders can validly be passed against detenus who are in jail, provided the officer passing the order is alive to the fact of the detenus being in custody and there is material on record to justify his conclusion that they would indulge in similar activity if set at liberty. 4. In Agustin's decision (supra) this Court also placed strong reliance on an earlier but oft-cited decision of this Court in Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad 1986CriLJ1959 wherein it was held that if a person is in ....