Reasonable suspicion and lawful arrest govern temporary custody; invalid arrest cannot support detention under the same rule.

Arrest under Rule 129(1) of the Defence of India Rules required the police officer to show reasonable grounds for suspicion, because the provision imposed an objective standard that had to be justified when challenged. The officer failed to discharge that burden. Temporary custody under Rule 129(4) was valid only where the arrest itself was lawful; it could not independently validate detention or cure an invalid arrest. Because the arrest was unlawful, the custody order lacked a lawful foundation. The detention was therefore unlawful, and the High Court's release order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, when a police officer arrests a person under Rule 129(1) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, he must satisfy the Court that his suspicion was reasonable. (ii) Whether an order of temporary custody made by the Provincial Government under Rule 129(4) remains valid when the arrest under Rule 129(1) was invalid.

Issue (i): Whether, when a police officer arrests a person under Rule 129(1) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, he must satisfy the Court that his suspicion was reasonable.

Analysis: Rule 129 permits arrest by a police officer only where he reasonably suspects the person of acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety or the efficient prosecution of the war. The language differs from Rule 26, under which Government may detain only if it is satisfied on the matter. The requirement of reasonable suspicion imports an objective test, and the officer who relies on the arrest must justify it when challenged. On the evidence, that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The police officer was bound to prove reasonable grounds of suspicion, and he failed to do so.

Issue (ii): Whether an order of temporary custody made by the Provincial Government under Rule 129(4) remains valid when the arrest under Rule 129(1) was invalid.

Analysis: Rule 129(4) authorises temporary custody only in respect of a person arrested under the rule. The language does not enlarge Government's powers or validate custody independently of a lawful arrest. A final detention order may be made under Rule 26 only on Government being satisfied as required there, but that is a distinct power. Since the arrest itself was invalid, the foundation for temporary custody under Rule 129(4) was absent.

Conclusion: The order of temporary custody was invalid because it depended on a lawful arrest under Rule 129(1).

Final Conclusion: The detention was unlawful, the High Court's order releasing the detenu was justified, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute authorises arrest only on reasonable suspicion, the arresting officer must justify that suspicion on challenge, and a power of temporary custody confined to persons lawfully arrested under the same provision cannot validate detention where the arrest itself was unlawful.

---