Preventive detention in judicial custody requires real likelihood of bail release and supporting material; bare bail possibility is insufficient.

Preventive detention of a person already in judicial custody is sustainable only if the detaining authority is aware of that custody and has cogent material showing a real or imminent possibility of release on bail, together with a basis to believe prejudicial activity would follow. A bare reference to the possibility of filing a bail application is insufficient. On the record, there was no material showing likely release on bail and no proper foundation for the subjective satisfaction recorded in the detention order. The SC held the detention order unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a preventive detention order could be sustained when the detenu was already in judicial custody, no bail application was pending, and the detention authority had no cogent material to conclude that there was a real or imminent possibility of release on bail.

Analysis: Preventive detention of a person already in custody is valid only if the detaining authority is aware of the custody position and has material on record to justify the conclusion that release on bail is likely or imminent, and that upon such release the person would indulge in prejudicial activity. A mere reference to a bare possibility of moving a bail application does not satisfy this requirement. The record disclosed neither material showing a real possibility of release nor a proper basis for the subjective satisfaction recorded in the detention order.

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

---