Preventive detention in judicial custody upheld where custody, likely bail, and future prejudicial conduct were duly considered.

A preventive detention order can be sustained against a person already in judicial custody if the authority is aware of that custody, has cogent material showing a likely near-term release on bail, and records subjective satisfaction that detention is needed to prevent further prejudicial conduct. The detention was upheld because the grounds reflected awareness of custody, likelihood of release, and apprehension of continued smuggling activity. Consideration of the representation and reference to the Advisory Board were also found proper, as the substance of the allegations and retraction material had been considered. Delay in service did not vitiate detention, since the gap was explained by translation requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order of preventive detention could be sustained when the detenu was already in judicial custody. (ii) Whether the detaining authority failed to consider the relevant material while rejecting the representation and placing the matter before the Advisory Board. (iii) Whether delay in service of the detention order vitiated the detention.

Issue (i): Whether an order of preventive detention could be sustained when the detenu was already in judicial custody.

Analysis: Subsisting custody does not by itself invalidate a preventive detention order. The decisive requirements are that the detaining authority must be aware of the existing custody and must have cogent material to conclude that release on bail is likely in the near future and that, on the basis of antecedent activities, preventive detention is necessary to prevent further prejudicial conduct. The grounds recorded awareness of custody, the likelihood of release on bail, and the apprehension of continued smuggling activity if released. The custody was also of short duration and the surrounding circumstances supported the authority's subjective satisfaction.

Conclusion: The detention order was valid despite the detenu being in custody.

Issue (ii): Whether the detaining authority failed to consider the relevant material while rejecting the representation and placing the matter before the Advisory Board.

Analysis: The record showed that allegations of coercion and retraction were noticed in the grounds of detention, and the authority had considered the material concerning the alleged wrongful arrest and the retraction of statements. The complaint that certain documents were not separately adverted to did not establish non-application of mind, since the substance of the allegations had been taken into account. The same material was available for consideration by the Advisory Board.

Conclusion: There was no infirmity in the consideration of the representation or the Advisory Board proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether delay in service of the detention order vitiated the detention.

Analysis: Although there was a gap between the passing and service of the detention order, the delay was explained by the need for translation of documents into Hindi and Gurumukhi. The explanation was accepted as valid and sufficient, and no violation was established on the facts.

Conclusion: The delay in service did not vitiate the detention.

Final Conclusion: The detention was upheld and the petition failed on all grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order against a person already in custody is valid if the authority is aware of the custody, has cogent material showing likely release on bail, and is subjectively satisfied that detention is necessary to prevent future prejudicial activity.

---