Preventive detention can rest on one concealed currency-export attempt when surrounding facts show a real risk of repetition.

Preventive detention may rest on a single attempted illegal export of currency where the surrounding circumstances show planned concealment and a reasonable likelihood of repetition, so the detention order was sustained. The availability of prosecution under customs law does not by itself bar preventive detention where the detaining authority considers the material and concludes that prosecution may not prevent further prejudicial conduct, so the order remained valid. The governing principle is that detention depends on a forward-looking assessment of future misconduct, not on the mere existence of an alternative criminal remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a single instance of attempted illegal export of currency, having regard to the surrounding circumstances, could justify preventive detention to prevent future prejudicial conduct; (ii) whether the availability of prosecution under the customs law barred the detention order.

Issue (i): whether a single instance of attempted illegal export of currency, having regard to the surrounding circumstances, could justify preventive detention to prevent future prejudicial conduct

Analysis: Preventive detention is a precautionary measure based on a reasonable forecast of future behaviour. A solitary act may suffice where the nature of the act and attendant circumstances indicate a likelihood of repetition. The attempted export of a large sum of Indian currency was found to be planned, concealed in multiple places, and undertaken in a manner that supported an inference of future similar conduct.

Conclusion: The single act, in the circumstances of the case, was sufficient to sustain the detention order and the conclusion was against the detenu.

Issue (ii): whether the availability of prosecution under the customs law barred the detention order

Analysis: The existence of a possible prosecution does not operate as an absolute bar to preventive detention. What matters is whether the detaining authority considered the question and whether the materials justified detention to prevent continued violations of law where prosecution may be insufficient to prevent repetition of the conduct.

Conclusion: The availability of prosecution did not bar preventive detention and the conclusion was against the detenu.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was sustained because the detaining authority could validly infer a likelihood of repeated prejudicial conduct, and preventive detention was not excluded merely because criminal prosecution was also possible.

Ratio Decidendi: A solitary act can justify preventive detention where its nature and surrounding circumstances reasonably indicate a likelihood of repetition, and the possibility of prosecution does not by itself preclude such detention.

---