Preventive detention during custody upheld where bail was likely, supporting materials were auxiliary, and no prejudice was shown.

Preventive detention of a person already in custody is valid where the detaining authority is aware of the custody, has reliable material to believe release on bail is likely, and records satisfaction that release would probably lead to prejudicial activity; the order was upheld on that basis. Non-supply of auxiliary statements and supporting materials did not vitiate detention because the supplied FIRs disclosed the real basis of the detention and no prejudice to representation was shown. Service of the grounds within the statutory period satisfied the communication requirement, and omission to mention a separate right to represent to the detaining authority did not invalidate the detention under the Tamil Nadu Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was invalid because the detenu was already in custody and the authority recorded a likelihood of release on bail; (ii) Whether non-supply of the statements and other materials relied upon for treating the detenu as a goonda vitiated the detention; (iii) Whether service of the grounds of detention within five days and the omission to mention a right to represent to the detaining authority or seek revocation invalidated the detention.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was invalid because the detenu was already in custody and the authority recorded a likelihood of release on bail.

Analysis: A detention order can be made against a person already in custody if the authority is aware of the custody, has reliable material to believe that release on bail is likely, and records satisfaction that on release the detenu would indulge in prejudicial activities. The detention grounds showed awareness of custody, the imminent possibility of bail, and material connecting the detenu with incidents affecting public order. The case law relied upon did not establish any absolute bar against detention during custody.

Conclusion: The detention order was not invalid on the ground that the detenu was in custody or that the authority considered the likelihood of bail.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of the statements and other materials relied upon for treating the detenu as a goonda vitiated the detention.

Analysis: The grounds made clear that the serious incidents of 10 and 11 February 1993 formed the real basis of detention, while the earlier cases were referred to only to show habitual conduct. The FIRs were supplied, and the statements under section 161 and other supporting materials were only auxiliary materials used to verify the FIR contents. Their non-supply did not cause prejudice and did not deny an effective representation.

Conclusion: The detention was not vitiated by non-supply of the auxiliary materials.

Issue (iii): Whether service of the grounds of detention within five days and the omission to mention a right to represent to the detaining authority or seek revocation invalidated the detention.

Analysis: Grounds served within the statutory period satisfied the requirement of communication without avoidable delay. Under the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Act, the representation contemplated by Article 22(5) was to be made to the Government, which had the power to approve or revoke the detention after the officer's order. The Act did not contemplate a separate right to represent to the detaining authority after approval by the Government, and the omission to mention such a right did not vitiate the detention.

Conclusion: The detention was valid despite service of the grounds within five days and despite the absence of any statement that a representation could be made to the detaining authority for revocation.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the preventive detention order and found no constitutional or statutory infirmity in the detention on the grounds urged.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order against a person already in custody is valid if the detaining authority is aware of the custody, has reliable material indicating likely release on bail, and records subjective satisfaction that release would probably lead to prejudicial activity; auxiliary materials not forming the real basis of detention need not be supplied if no prejudice is caused.

---