Preventive detention in custody requires real likelihood of bail; speculative fear of release is not enough.

Preventive detention of a person already in custody is justified only when the detaining authority shows a real possibility of release on bail; a mere speculative apprehension is insufficient. Where no bail application is pending, detention ordinarily cannot be sustained on that basis alone. An exception may arise if a co-accused on the same footing has already obtained bail, but that exception must rest on relevant particulars. On the stated facts, the detenue remained in jail, had not sought bail, and no valid material showed a real likelihood of release, so the detention order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a preventive detention order could be sustained against a person already in custody when no bail application was pending and no real possibility of release on bail was shown.

Analysis: Preventive detention of a person already in custody is justified only where the detaining authority can show a real possibility of release on bail. If no bail application is pending, detention ordinarily cannot be based on a speculative apprehension of release. An exception may arise where a co-accused, standing on the same footing, has already been granted bail, but that exception must be supported by relevant particulars. On the facts, the detenue was in jail, had not moved any bail application, and no valid material showed a real likelihood of release.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and was quashed.

---