Preventive detention in custody requires real likelihood of bail release; a mere possibility of applying for bail is insufficient.

Preventive detention of a person already in custody requires the authority to have custody awareness, reliable material showing a real possibility of release on bail, and recorded satisfaction that prejudicial activity may follow; a bare possibility of filing bail is insufficient. The challenged detention was not invalid for non-supply of carrier statements because the relied-upon orders-in-original containing those statements were part of the material furnished. The plea of ante-dating also failed because the file showed the grounds were prepared before service, and weekend dates did not justify a presumption of official inactivity. The detention order was nevertheless set aside for want of a reasoned finding on imminent bail release.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-placement and non-supply of the carrier statements and related relied upon material vitiated the detention order. (ii) Whether the detention order and grounds of detention were ante-dated. (iii) Whether the absence of a finding of imminent likelihood of release on bail vitiated the detention order.

Issue (i): Whether non-placement and non-supply of the carrier statements and related relied upon material vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The challenged material was not treated as a mere casual reference. The order and the grounds specifically relied on the earlier orders-in-original that recorded the voluntary statements of the carriers, and those orders formed part of the relied upon documents supplied to the detenu. On that basis, the Court held that the material relied upon by the detaining authority had been placed before it and supplied to the detenu.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention order and grounds of detention were ante-dated.

Analysis: The original file was examined and showed that the grounds of detention were prepared before the detention order was passed and served. The Court also rejected the inference drawn from the weekend dates, holding that there is no presumption that official work is not performed on Saturdays and Sundays.

Conclusion: The plea of ante-dating was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the absence of a finding of imminent likelihood of release on bail vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The grounds recorded only that the detenu might apply for bail again and continue prejudicial activity. They did not record a reasoned satisfaction that there was a real or imminent possibility of release on bail. Since preventive detention of a person already in custody requires satisfaction not only of custody and propensity to act prejudicially but also of a real possibility of release on bail, the recorded satisfaction was held insufficient.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was set aside and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention of a person already in custody is valid only where the authority is aware of the custody, has reliable material to conclude that there is a real possibility of release on bail and consequent prejudicial activity, and records a proper subjective satisfaction to that effect; a mere possibility of applying for bail is insufficient.

---