Preventive detention under COFEPOSA fails without credible material showing a real likelihood of future smuggling activity.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA requires credible material showing a real and rational likelihood of future prejudicial activity; subjective satisfaction cannot rest on speculation. The detention was challenged because the passport had already been impounded and the adjudication proceedings had ended in confiscation with an option of redemption, leaving no acceptable material to infer that the detenu would again indulge in smuggling. In the absence of such material, the court held that the detention order was unsustainable, vitiated the detaining authority's satisfaction, and the habeas corpus petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act was vitiated for want of valid subjective satisfaction, particularly on the question whether there was material to infer a likelihood of the detenu indulging in smuggling activities in future after his passport had been impounded.

Analysis: The detention was founded on the alleged smuggling of gold coins and the detaining authority also relied on the possibility of future prejudicial activity. The court examined the fact that the passport had been impounded and that the adjudication proceedings had already culminated in confiscation with an option of redemption. Relying on the principle that preventive detention requires material capable of supporting a real and rational apprehension of future prejudicial conduct, the court held that mere continuation of detention without adequate material could not justify subjective satisfaction. In the absence of acceptable material showing a real likelihood of future smuggling activity despite the impounding of the passport, the detention was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated and liable to be set aside, and the habeas corpus petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention under COFEPOSA cannot be sustained unless the detaining authority has credible material to support a genuine likelihood of future prejudicial activity; if the basis for such apprehension is absent, the subjective satisfaction is invalid.

---