Preventive detention cannot stand where an existing licence suspension has already neutralised the stated risk of further offences.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was examined against an existing suspension of the detenue's licence. The Court noted that the stated preventive purpose was to stop further similar offences, but the suspension had already neutralised that risk before the detention order was made. On that basis, the preventive object was treated as already achieved by the prior restriction, and the detention order could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 could be sustained when the appellant's licence had already been suspended, thereby allegedly neutralising the stated ground for detention.

Analysis: The detention order was justified on the footing that it was necessary to prevent further offences of a similar nature. The relevant material showed, however, that the appellant's licence had already been suspended before the detention order was made. On that basis, the preventive object asserted for detention was effectively addressed by the suspension itself. In the circumstances, and without entering into other questions, the Court found that the detention order could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The detention order was quashed and the detenue was directed to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the preventive object of detention is already effectively achieved by an existing restriction, the detention order cannot be sustained.

---