Preventive detention in custody needs fresh, proximate material and real bail risk; a bare assumption is insufficient.

Preventive detention of a person already in custody requires the detaining authority to be aware of the custody and to rely on fresh, relevant and proximate material showing a real likelihood of release and the need to prevent prejudicial activity. Stale incidents, matters unconnected with public order, or a bare assumption that bail may be granted are insufficient. Where bail had already been refused, no subsequent application was pending, and no new prejudicial activity was shown after withdrawal of the earlier order, the record disclosed lack of proper application of mind and absence of the required subjective satisfaction. The detention order was therefore invalid and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated for want of subjective satisfaction, because the detenu was already in custody, no fresh facts had arisen after the earlier detention order was withdrawn, and the authority proceeded on an unfounded assumption that release on bail was likely.

Analysis: Preventive detention of a person already in custody is permissible only where the detaining authority is aware of that custody and is satisfied on cogent, relevant, and fresh material that release is imminent and detention is necessary to prevent prejudicial activity. The grounds must show a real and proximate connection between the material relied upon and the need for detention. Stale incidents, matters unconnected with public order, and a bald or mechanical assertion that bail may be granted do not constitute sufficient material. Where the record shows that bail had already been refused and no subsequent bail application was pending, an assumption that the detenu may still be released on bail indicates non-awareness of the true factual position and absence of proper application of mind. In addition, where no new prejudicial activity is alleged during the period when the detenu was actually free after revocation of the earlier order, the statutory requirement of fresh facts is not satisfied.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid and liable to be quashed; the result was in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Preventive detention cannot rest on stale material or a speculative possibility of bail when the authority is unaware of the actual custody position and no fresh grounds exist to justify detention.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of preventive detention against a person already in custody must be founded on awareness of that custody and supported by fresh, relevant, and proximate material showing a real likelihood of release and a necessity for detention; a bare ipse dixit that bail may be obtained is insufficient.

---