Preventive detention during custody is valid when custody is known and compelling reasons are recorded, without special reasons for maximum duration.

Preventive detention is not barred merely because the detenu is already in custody; the detaining authority must know of that custody and record compelling reasons for detention despite it. The validity of the order is not defeated simply because the offence is bailable or non-bailable. Proceedings before the Advisory Board and disposal of representations are lawful where the record shows prompt processing, no proved denial of witness examination or assistance, and supply of relied-upon documents with the grounds. Confirmation of detention for the maximum permissible period does not require special reasons if the statute authorises confirmation for such period and retains power to revoke or modify the order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether preventive detention could validly be ordered against a detenu already in custody, and whether the detaining authority had failed to apply its mind to that fact; (ii) Whether the proceedings before the Advisory Board and the disposal of the representations suffered from violation of natural justice or undue delay; (iii) Whether confirmation of detention for the maximum period required special reasons or additional application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether preventive detention could validly be ordered against a detenu already in custody, and whether the detaining authority had failed to apply its mind to that fact.

Analysis: Preventive detention is not barred merely because the person is already in custody. The decisive requirements are that the detaining authority must be aware of the existing custody and the grounds of detention must disclose compelling reasons for preventive detention despite that custody. The fact that the criminal offence is bailable or non-bailable is not determinative by itself. On the facts recorded in the grounds, awareness of the arrest and sufficient material justifying detention were present.

Conclusion: The detention order was valid on this ground and the plea of non-application of mind failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings before the Advisory Board and the disposal of the representations suffered from violation of natural justice or undue delay.

Analysis: The record did not establish that the detenu made a specific request before the Advisory Board to examine witnesses then and there, or that the claimed assistance of a friend was wrongly denied. The representations were processed with the comments of the concerned authorities, and the material showed prompt handling rather than unreasonable delay. The supply of relied-upon documents was also found to have been made with the grounds of detention.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice or procedural illegality was made out.

Issue (iii): Whether confirmation of detention for the maximum period required special reasons or additional application of mind.

Analysis: Under the statutory scheme, once the Advisory Board reports sufficient cause, the Government may confirm the detention for such period as it thinks fit. The statute does not require special reasons for selecting the maximum period, and the power to revoke or modify the order remains available. The absence of a separate reasoned explanation for the full period therefore did not vitiate the order.

Conclusion: The contention against the period of detention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The detention was upheld in law, and the challenge to the preventive detention order failed on all substantive grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of preventive detention against a person already in custody is valid if the detaining authority is aware of the custody and the grounds of detention disclose compelling reasons for such detention, and the statute does not require special reasons for confirming detention for the maximum permissible period.

---