BIRENDRA KUMAR RAI ALIAS VIRENDRA KUMAR RAI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

BIRENDRA KUMAR RAI ALIAS VIRENDRA KUMAR RAI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

The preventive detention order was supported by sufficient documentary material evidencing the detenu's engagement in illicit narcotics traffic, and the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was not vitiated by use of 'likely' in the grounds since prosecution proceedings had not factually commenced. The...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: Birendra Kumar Rai alias Virendra Kumar Rai; Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 September 1992
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Appeal From Allahabad High Court's Dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention Under PITNDPS Act, Delay in Consideration of Representation, Compelling Necessity for Detention, Procedural Fairness Under Article 22(5)
Criminal Law Preventive Detention Narcotics Law Constitutional Law Preventive Detention Under PITNDPS Act Delay in Consideration of Representation Compelling Necessity for Detention Procedural Fairness Under Article 22(5)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Birendra Kumar Rai alias Virendra Kumar Rai

Petitioner

Union of India and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Appeal From Allahabad High Court's Dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-application of mind vitiates preventive detention order under Section 3(1) of PITNDPS Act, 1988
  2. 2 Whether delay in disposing representation violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether detention order is justified when detenu is already in custody for other offences

Ratio Decidendi

The preventive detention order was supported by sufficient documentary material evidencing the detenu's engagement in illicit narcotics traffic, and the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was not vitiated by use of 'likely' in the grounds since prosecution proceedings had not factually commenced. The delay in consideration and disposal of representations was properly explained and attributable to factors not constituting inaction by authorities, thus the detention was not invalidated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Special Leave Petition dismissed
  • No release of detenu ordered