Preventive detention in custody failed where bail was only speculative and the orders showed mechanical non-application of mind.

Preventive detention of persons already in custody requires compelling, case-specific reasons, and the mere possibility of statutory bail was not treated as sufficient where no bail application was pending. The Delhi HC also found the detention orders unsustainable because inconsistencies between the orders and the grounds of detention, together with repetitive, mechanically drafted recitals and factual errors, showed non-application of mind. The statutory saving provision could not cure this foundational defect. Both detention orders were quashed and the detenus were directed to be released from custody.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the preventive detention orders were sustainable when the detenus were already in custody and the only stated basis was the imminent possibility of statutory bail. (ii) Whether the detention orders were vitiated by non-application of mind because of inconsistencies between the detention orders and the grounds of detention, including repetitive and mechanically drafted recitals.

Issue (i): Whether the preventive detention orders were sustainable when the detenus were already in custody and the only stated basis was the imminent possibility of statutory bail.

Analysis: Preventive detention is an exceptional measure and cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal process. Where the detenus were already in custody and no bail application was pending, the detaining authority had to disclose compelling reasons for resorting to preventive detention. The mere possibility of release on statutory bail, standing alone, was not treated as a sufficient compelling reason to justify detention.

Conclusion: The detention orders were not sustainable on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention orders were vitiated by non-application of mind because of inconsistencies between the detention orders and the grounds of detention, including repetitive and mechanically drafted recitals.

Analysis: The use of inconsistent expressions and the repeated disjunctive formulation showed uncertainty as to the precise grounds relied upon. The variation between the detention orders and the grounds of detention, together with factual errors and apparent cut-and-paste drafting, indicated that the detaining authority had not applied its mind independently to each case. In such circumstances, the statutory saving provision could not cure the foundational defect of mechanical decision-making.

Conclusion: The detention orders were vitiated by non-application of mind.

Final Conclusion: Both detention orders were quashed and the writ petitions were allowed, resulting in the release of the detenus from custody.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention of a person already in custody requires compelling, case-specific reasons, and a detention order founded on mechanical drafting or inconsistent grounds reflects non-application of mind and cannot be sustained.

---