Preventive detention in custody requires cogent material showing likely bail release and necessity to prevent prejudicial activity.

Preventive detention of a person already in custody is valid only if the detaining authority is aware of the custody and has cogent material showing a real likelihood of release on bail, together with the need to detain to prevent prejudicial activity. Mere subsisting custody does not by itself bar detention, but the order must disclose a rational basis for anticipating imminent release. On the stated facts, the record showed custody in the connected criminal case but no material indicating probable bail release, so the detention order was invalid and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a preventive detention order is valid when the detenu is already in custody and the detaining authority has not shown a likelihood of release on bail.

Analysis: Subsisting custody does not by itself bar preventive detention, but the detaining authority must be aware of the custody and must also have cogent material showing a real likelihood of release and a consequent need for detention to prevent prejudicial acts. Where the order and grounds disclose awareness of custody but contain no indication that release on bail was considered likely, the legal basis for preventive detention is absent. On the facts, the record showed that the detenu was already in custody in the connected criminal case and there was no material showing any apprehension of imminent release on bail.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention could not be sustained on the existing material, and the appellant succeeded in challenging the detention order.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention of a person already in custody is valid only if the detaining authority is aware of the custody and is reasonably satisfied on cogent material that release on bail is likely and detention is necessary to prevent prejudicial activity.

---