Preventive detention and anticipated bail: custody fears alone cannot sustain detention without independent grounds.

A preventive detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act was challenged because the detenu was already in custody and the authority relied on a future possibility of release on bail and renewed smuggling activity. The High Court held that such a general apprehension, without independently sustainable detention grounds, was insufficient to justify preventive detention on these facts. It treated the proper remedy for custody-related concerns as opposing bail or challenging any bail order, rather than invoking detention without adequate basis. The detention order was quashed and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required in other lawful detention.

---

---

Issues: Whether a preventive detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 could be sustained where the detenu was already in custody and the order was based on the likelihood of his release on bail and renewal of prejudicial activities.

Analysis: The detention grounds showed that the detaining authority proceeded on the basis that, if released on bail, the detenu might again engage in smuggling-related activity. The Court held that such an apprehension did not justify preventive detention on the facts of the case. The matter was treated as covered by the principle that where the real concern is custody relief, the proper course is to oppose bail or challenge a bail order, rather than invoke preventive detention without sustainable grounds.

Conclusion: The detention order could not be upheld and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other lawful detention.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order cannot be sustained merely on a general apprehension that a person already in custody may obtain bail and commit prejudicial acts, unless the detention grounds independently justify such preventive action.

---