Preventive detention may be renewed on fresh material and sustained even in custody if release is likely and risks persist.

A fresh preventive detention order was upheld where it rested on subsequent independent material gathered after revocation of the earlier order, including travel patterns, mobile-phone material and foreign-exchange records; the earlier revocation did not by itself bar renewed detention. The challenge based on alleged non-consideration of representation before the Advisory Board also failed because the detenu and counsel appeared without objection and no denial of the statutory opportunity was shown. Detention remained sustainable despite seizure of the passport and existing custody, since the authority recorded satisfaction that release was likely and preventive detention was necessary to prevent further prejudicial activity.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier revocation of the detention order barred a fresh detention order on subsequent investigation; (ii) whether the plea regarding non-consideration of representation before the Advisory Board vitiated the detention; (iii) whether detention was unsustainable because the detenu's passport had been seized and he was already in custody.

Issue (i): whether the earlier revocation of the detention order barred a fresh detention order on subsequent investigation

Analysis: The detention was founded on later material gathered after revocation of the earlier order, including the detenu's repeated travel pattern, mobile-phone material and foreign-exchange transaction records. A fresh detention order is not barred merely because an earlier order was revoked, where the later order rests on independent subsequent investigation and subjective satisfaction based on fresh grounds.

Conclusion: The challenge fails. The fresh detention order was valid and not barred by the earlier revocation.

Issue (ii): whether the plea regarding non-consideration of representation before the Advisory Board vitiated the detention

Analysis: The record showed that the detenu and counsel appeared before the Advisory Board and no objection was raised at that stage. The representation issue, raised later, was treated as an afterthought and did not establish denial of the statutory opportunity or non-consideration in a manner that would invalidate the detention.

Conclusion: The detention was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (iii): whether detention was unsustainable because the detenu's passport had been seized and he was already in custody

Analysis: Seizure of the passport did not eliminate the apprehension of future prejudicial activity. The authority had before it material showing repeated travel, concealment of foreign currency, and organised smuggling activity, and was satisfied that release on bail could lead to renewed prejudicial conduct. Detention in custody can be ordered where the authority is aware of custody and records satisfaction that release is likely and that preventive detention is necessary.

Conclusion: The detention order was sustainable despite the passport seizure and custody.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because the impugned preventive detention was supported by fresh material, valid statutory satisfaction, and no legal infirmity was established in the Advisory Board proceedings or in the assessment of future prejudicial conduct.

Ratio Decidendi: A fresh preventive detention order may be made on subsequent independent material notwithstanding an earlier revocation, and detention can validly be ordered even when the detenu is in custody if the authority is satisfied that release is likely and preventive detention is necessary to forestall prejudicial activity.

---