Preventive detention requires objective material; speculative assumptions on bail and future smuggling cannot sustain the detention order.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA must rest on real and objective material, especially where the detenu is already in custody. The detaining authority's assumption that bail was likely, despite repeated rejection of bail applications, was held to be unsupported and therefore speculative. The further inference that the detenu would resume smuggling was also found to lack material, as the record indicated that the alleged activity was part of another person's operation and the passport remained with customs. The detention order was therefore invalid for non-application of mind and absence of objective material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was vitiated for want of objective material to support the detaining authority's satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and would thereafter resume smuggling activities.

Analysis: Preventive detention is a preventive, not punitive, measure, and the detaining authority must act on real and objective material. Where the detenu was already in custody and repeated bail applications had been rejected, the assertion that bail was "normally granted" did not rest on any objective basis. The subsequent grant of bail could not validate an order that, when passed, was founded on an unsupported assumption of imminent release. The further inference that the detenu would again engage in smuggling was also unsupported, particularly when the order itself indicated that the alleged smuggling was carried out as part of another person's operation and that the detenu's passport remained in customs custody. The conclusion that he could still clandestinely travel for smuggling was thus speculative and not based on material.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid for non-application of mind and absence of objective material, and the challenge to the detention succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is unsustainable where the detaining authority's satisfaction rests on conjecture rather than objective material, particularly on the supposed likelihood of bail and future prejudicial conduct.

---