Preventive detention while in custody requires cogent proof of likely bail release and a live link to prejudicial activity.

Preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 cannot be sustained against a detenu already in custody unless the detaining authority shows awareness of that custody, cogent material indicating a real likelihood of release on bail, and a proximate live link between past activities and the need for detention. A bare apprehension that bail may be granted is insufficient to establish valid subjective satisfaction under Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution. Where the relied-on incidents are stale or remote and no immediate necessity is shown, the detention order is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order could be sustained when the detenu was already in custody, the grounds of detention disclosed only an apprehension of release on bail, and no proximate material or live link was shown to justify detention under the National Security Act, 1980.

Analysis: Preventive detention is an exceptional measure trenching upon personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution and must rest on cogent material showing a real necessity to prevent prejudicial activity. Where the detenu is already in custody, the detaining authority must show awareness of that custody and must base its satisfaction on material indicating a credible likelihood of release and a proximate connection between past activities and the need for detention. A mere assumption that bail may be granted, without concrete supporting material, cannot substitute for the statutory requirement of valid subjective satisfaction. The earlier incidents relied upon were also stale and remote, and no live link was shown between those incidents and the detention order.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and stood quashed; the challenge succeeded in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order against a person already in custody is valid only if the detaining authority has cogent material showing a real likelihood of release and a proximate need to prevent prejudicial conduct; a bare apprehension of bail is insufficient.

---