Preventive detention after acquittal is valid where statutory bar and personal application of mind are shown.

Preventive detention may be sustained even after acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings on the same or similar facts, because the criminal standard of proof does not control the executive satisfaction required for detention. Prior acquittal therefore does not by itself invalidate a detention order. Where the detention order is regular on its face, supported by the detaining authority's stated personal consideration, and protected by a statutory bar on judicial inquiry, the Court cannot examine the grounds or motives unless fraud, mistake, bad faith, or non-application of mind is affirmatively shown. In the absence of such proof, the detention challenge fails.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order of preventive detention could be sustained notwithstanding prior acquittal or discharge in criminal trials on the same or similar facts. (ii) Whether, where the detention order is regular on its face and the detaining authority states that it applied its mind, the Court could examine the grounds or motives for detention in view of the statutory bar.

Issue (i): Whether an order of preventive detention could be sustained notwithstanding prior acquittal or discharge in criminal trials on the same or similar facts.

Analysis: The criminal standard of proof is different from the executive standard governing preventive detention. Failure of prosecution does not necessarily exhaust the material relevant to public safety or public order. The Government may prosecute first and still form a separate, bona fide satisfaction that detention is necessary to prevent prejudicial conduct. Acquittal in criminal proceedings therefore does not by itself oust the power to detain under the preventive detention law.

Conclusion: The prior acquittals did not invalidate the detention orders.

Issue (ii): Whether, where the detention order is regular on its face and the detaining authority states that it applied its mind, the Court could examine the grounds or motives for detention in view of the statutory bar.

Analysis: The Ordinance expressly barred the Court from calling the detention order in question. Once a facially valid order is supported by an affidavit showing personal consideration by the detaining authority, a strong presumption arises that the order was properly made. That presumption can be displaced only by proof of fraud, mistake, or absence of application of mind. On the facts, there was no evidence of bad faith or want of good faith, and the materials before the Court did not rebut the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The Court had no jurisdiction to inquire into the grounds or motives, and the challenge to detention failed.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention orders were upheld and the petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a preventive detention order is regular on its face, supported by the detaining authority's personal consideration, and protected by a statutory bar on judicial inquiry, the Court cannot go behind the order to examine grounds or motives unless fraud, mistake, or non-application of mind is affirmatively shown.

---