Preventive detention based on concrete smuggling material upheld; post-order retraction could not affect the detaining authority's satisfaction.

Preventive detention was sustained where recovery of gold bars from an imported fruit consignment, together with customs statements, provided concrete material indicating active involvement in smuggling and a live-link with prejudicial activity; the investigation was not treated as incomplete or the material as merely tentative. The detaining authority was also not bound to consider a retraction made after the detention order, because subjective satisfaction had to be assessed on the material available when the order was passed. The writ petition was dismissed and the detention order upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the detention order was vitiated because the investigation was incomplete and the material relied upon was perfunctory or inchoate; (ii) whether the detaining authority was bound to consider a retraction made after the detention order was passed.

Issue (i): whether the detention order was vitiated because the investigation was incomplete and the material relied upon was perfunctory or inchoate.

Analysis: Gold bars were recovered from the imported fruit consignment of the petitioner, and the seizure and statements recorded under the customs law furnished concrete material showing active involvement in smuggling. On those facts, the allegation could not be treated as inconclusive or merely tentative. The reliance on authority concerning ordinary customs adjudication was held to be misplaced because the present case concerned preventive detention, where the material showed propensity, potentiality and a live-link with the prejudicial activity.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated on the ground of incomplete investigation or inchoate material, and this contention failed.

Issue (ii): whether the detaining authority was bound to consider a retraction made after the detention order was passed.

Analysis: The retraction by the concerned person was made after the detention order dated 15 March 2019 had already been passed. A document coming into existence subsequent to the impugned order could not have been considered by the detaining authority while forming its subjective satisfaction on that date.

Conclusion: The detaining authority was not required to consider the subsequent retraction, and this contention failed.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, detention may rest on concrete incriminating material showing propensity, potentiality and live-link with prejudicial activity, and materials arising after the detention order cannot invalidate the subjective satisfaction recorded earlier.

---