Preventive detention on fresh material upheld despite prior revocation, custody, and passport seizure not negating future risk

A preventive detention order can be sustained on fresh investigative material despite revocation of an earlier order, where the later order rests on additional facts and a distinct subjective satisfaction. The detention was also not vitiated by the challenge that the representation was improperly considered or that no effective hearing was given before the Advisory Board, as the record showed the detenu and counsel were present and no timely objection was raised. Custody status and seizure of the passport did not negate the likelihood of renewed prejudicial activity, because preventive detention may still be justified where release on bail and recurrence of smuggling activity are reasonably apprehended.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a fresh detention order could be sustained on the basis of subsequent investigation despite revocation of an earlier detention order on the same detenu; (ii) Whether the plea that the representation was not properly considered and that no effective opportunity was granted before the Advisory Board vitiated the detention; (iii) Whether seizure of the detenu's passport and his custody status negated the likelihood of prejudicial activity so as to invalidate preventive detention.

Issue (i): Whether a fresh detention order could be sustained on the basis of subsequent investigation despite revocation of an earlier detention order on the same detenu.

Analysis: The detention order was founded on fresh investigation material, including repeated foreign travel, electronic material indicating involvement in foreign currency smuggling, and exchange documents showing organised movement of currency. The prior revocation of an earlier detention order did not bar a subsequent order where the later order rested on additional material and a distinct subjective satisfaction. Identity of facts was not established so as to invalidate the later order.

Conclusion: The fresh detention order was valid and this issue was decided against the detenu.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea that the representation was not properly considered and that no effective opportunity was granted before the Advisory Board vitiated the detention.

Analysis: The record showed that the detenu and his counsel were present before the Advisory Board and no objection regarding the representation was raised at that stage. The objection was therefore treated as an afterthought. On the facts, no procedural infirmity was shown in the consideration of the representation or the hearing process.

Conclusion: The detention was not vitiated on this ground and this issue was decided against the detenu.

Issue (iii): Whether seizure of the detenu's passport and his custody status negated the likelihood of prejudicial activity so as to invalidate preventive detention.

Analysis: Preventive detention can be ordered even against a person in custody if the detaining authority is aware of the custody and is satisfied that release on bail is likely and that the person may again indulge in prejudicial acts. The authority relied on the detenu's travel pattern, electronic evidence, and exchange records to conclude that release on bail would pose a real likelihood of renewed smuggling activity. Seizure of the passport did not eliminate that risk.

Conclusion: The detention order was not invalidated by the seizure of the passport or the fact of custody, and this issue was decided against the detenu.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the detention order was supported by fresh material, the procedural challenge was not made out, and the authority's preventive detention satisfaction was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order may be sustained on fresh material and subjective satisfaction notwithstanding revocation of an earlier order, and custody or passport seizure does not by itself negate the likelihood of prejudicial activity where release and recurrence are reasonably apprehended.

---