Preventive detention based on a confession fails when the authority ignores a timely retraction of that confession.

A preventive detention order based on a confession is vulnerable if the detaining authority does not show awareness of a timely retraction of that confession. Mere reference to a bail application is insufficient where the grounds do not disclose consideration of the retraction itself. Material later placed before the Advisory Board cannot cure this defect, and confidential material protected by section 8(e) cannot be relied on to sustain the detention. The detention order was therefore invalid for non-application of mind and liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind because the detaining authority was not aware that the detenu had retracted his confession in the bail application.

Analysis: The detention was founded on the detenu's confessional statement under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The grounds showed awareness of the bail application only in the context of custody and bail, but did not disclose awareness that the confession had been retracted. Where a confession is relied upon for preventive detention, the detaining authority must be alive to the fact of retraction. Mere reference to the bail application is insufficient if the grounds do not show consideration of the retraction itself. Statements before the Advisory Board could not cure the defect, and the confidentiality provision in Section 8(e) also prevented reliance on that material to sustain the detention.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid for non-application of mind to the detenu's retraction of confession and was liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: If a preventive detention order is based on a confession, the detaining authority must be aware of any timely retraction of that confession, and the grounds of detention must disclose such awareness.

---