Preventive detention in custody requires real likelihood of bail release, not merely the possibility of a bail application.

Preventive detention of a person already in custody is sustainable only where the detaining authority has cogent material showing a real likelihood of release on bail and, after release, a likelihood of further prejudicial activity. A mere reference to the possibility of filing a bail application does not meet that standard, because it is materially different from a finding that release on bail is likely. On that basis, the detention order was held invalid and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a preventive detention order could be sustained when the detenu was already in custody, and the detaining authority recorded only the likelihood of his moving a bail application rather than the likelihood of his being released on bail.

Analysis: Preventive detention of a person already in custody is permissible only if the authority is aware of the custody and has cogent material to conclude that there is a real likelihood of release on bail and, upon such release, a likelihood of further prejudicial activity. The recorded satisfaction in the present case referred merely to the possibility of filing a bail application, which is materially different from the likelihood of actual release on bail. Such a basis does not satisfy the legal requirement for preventive detention.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the preventive detention order could not be sustained in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order against a person already in custody must be supported by cogent material showing a real likelihood of release on bail, and a bare reference to the possibility of filing a bail application is insufficient.

---