Preventive detention in custody requires real likelihood of release and a live need for detention after release.

Preventive detention of a person already in custody is sustainable only where the detaining authority applies its mind to the real and imminent possibility of release and to the need for detention after such release. Relevant material showing prejudicial activity may support the order, but a bald assertion that the detenu is likely to be enlarged on bail is insufficient. As the record did not show proper consideration of this essential factor before service of the order, the continued detention was held unjustified and the detention order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order of preventive detention could be sustained where the detenu was already in custody at the time of service of the detention order and the detaining authority had not properly considered the imminent possibility of release.

Analysis: The detention order was founded on materials indicating serious prejudicial activity affecting public order, and the order was not invalid merely because it had been passed on relevant materials. However, by the time the order was served, the detenu was already in jail. In such a situation, preventive detention could be justified only if the detaining authority had applied its mind to the real possibility of the detenu's release and the need to prevent future prejudicial conduct after release. A bald assertion that the detenu was likely to be enlarged on bail was not enough. The record did not show proper consideration of this essential factor before service of the order.

Conclusion: The continued detention under the preventive detention order was not justified, and the detention order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention of a person already in custody is valid only if the detaining authority has cogent material to conclude that release is imminent and the need for detention survives that custody situation.

---