Preventive detention needs real material of future smuggling risk; a lone incident and passport impounding were insufficient here.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA can be justified on a solitary smuggling incident only where the material objectively supports a real inference of future prejudicial activity. On the facts noted, there was only one alleged incident of foreign-currency smuggling, with no past antecedents or reliable material showing an organized pattern or real likelihood of repetition, so detention was not sustainable. Retention of the detenu's passport also substantially removed the basis for fearing further overseas smuggling, making the apprehension speculative. The commentary states that, without adequate material and where the stated risk is effectively foreclosed, preventive detention cannot stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a single incident of alleged smuggling of foreign currency, on the facts of the case, was sufficient to infer propensity and potentiality for future smuggling and sustain detention under the preventive detention law; (ii) Whether impounding of the detenu's passport had already foreclosed the possibility of further smuggling so as to make preventive detention unnecessary.

Issue (i): Whether a single incident of alleged smuggling of foreign currency, on the facts of the case, was sufficient to infer propensity and potentiality for future smuggling and sustain detention under the preventive detention law?

Analysis: Preventive detention is a precautionary measure and can be sustained on a solitary incident only where the materials justify a reasonable inference of organized or repeated prejudicial activity. The record showed only one incident, with no past antecedents or reliable material indicating earlier smuggling activity or a real likelihood of repetition. The detenu's explanation did not establish that he was part of an established smuggling network, and the standard required to curtail personal liberty was not met on the facts found.

Conclusion: The solitary incident did not, in the facts of the case, justify preventive detention under Section 3(1)(i) of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether impounding of the detenu's passport had already foreclosed the possibility of further smuggling so as to make preventive detention unnecessary?

Analysis: The detention order proceeded on the premise that the detenu would again smuggle goods if released, but the passport had already been retained by the customs authorities. Once foreign travel was prevented, the apprehension of future smuggling abroad became speculative. If the authority's concern was abetment while remaining in India, the order could not be justified under Section 3(1)(i), which addresses smuggling of goods, and not on conjecture about indirect misconduct without adequate material.

Conclusion: Impounding of the passport substantially neutralised the stated basis for detention, and the order could not be sustained on that footing.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable for want of sufficient material showing real future propensity to smuggle, and the writ petition ought to have succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention under COFEPOSA can rest on a solitary incident only when the material objectively supports a real inference of future prejudicial activity; where the alleged future smuggling is effectively foreclosed and the basis rests on speculation, the detention cannot stand.

---