Preventive detention may rest on a single incident where circumstances show organised prejudicial conduct and future risk.

Preventive detention may be sustained on a single incident where the nature of the act and surrounding circumstances reasonably disclose organised prejudicial conduct and a present likelihood of repetition. The Court treated the carrying and concealment of a large quantity of telegraph copper wires as indicating a criminal design affecting supplies and services essential to the community, and upheld the detention on that basis. It also held that discharge in the related criminal case did not invalidate the detention order, because preventive detention depends on subjective satisfaction and a separate prognosis of future conduct. No infirmity was found where the grounds were explained in Bangla, the detenue's mother tongue, and the representation was submitted in the same language.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order of preventive detention could be sustained on the basis of a single incident of carrying a large quantity of telegraph copper wires, and (ii) whether any infirmity arose from the alleged falsity of the criminal case outcome or from non-explanation of the grounds in the detenue's mother tongue.

Issue (i): Whether an order of preventive detention could be sustained on the basis of a single incident of carrying a large quantity of telegraph copper wires.

Analysis: Preventive detention rests on the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and a reasonable prognosis of future conduct. A single act is not, by itself, incapable of furnishing a valid basis for detention where the nature of the act and the surrounding circumstances indicate organized and serious prejudicial activity. The carrying of 11 bundles of telegraph copper wires weighing 3 quintals, coupled with the manner of concealment and the surrounding facts, was treated as showing a criminal design and a likelihood of repetition affecting supplies and services essential to the community.

Conclusion: The detention order was held sustainable on this ground and the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether any infirmity arose from the alleged falsity of the criminal case outcome or from non-explanation of the grounds in the detenue's mother tongue.

Analysis: The fact that the detenu was discharged in the criminal case did not negate the validity of a preventive detention order founded on the same incident. The record also showed that the grounds were explained in Bangla, which was the detenue's mother tongue, and the representation was filed in the same language.

Conclusion: No infirmity was found on either of these grounds and the contentions were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order was upheld and the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A single incident may justify preventive detention where its nature and attendant circumstances reasonably disclose organized prejudicial conduct and support a present likelihood of repetition; discharge in the criminal case does not by itself invalidate such detention, and the grounds must be shown to have been effectively communicated to the detenue.

---