Preventive detention fails where mala fides, mechanical action, and no real apprehension of future prejudice are shown.

Preventive detention was found unsustainable where the record indicated mala fides, non-application of mind, and a mechanical exercise of power. The Court noted that the first chemical examination did not establish narcotic substance, the later sampling and testing was not shown to be lawful, and the detention order was delayed and served while the person was already in custody. In the absence of a convincing basis for apprehended future prejudicial activity, the detention was treated as punitive rather than bona fide preventive action, and the order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated by mala fides, non-application of mind, and improper procedure in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The detention order was challenged on the ground that the authorities acted vindictively and mechanically. The Court found that the first chemical examination did not establish the presence of narcotic substance, while the later sample was sent and tested in a manner not shown to be in accordance with law. The Court also noted the delay in passing and serving the detention order, the fact that the petitioner was already in custody, and the absence of a convincing basis to show apprehended future prejudicial activity. These circumstances led the Court to conclude that the detention was not a bona fide preventive measure but was punitive in character.

Conclusion: The detention order was held to be bad in law and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned detention order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order cannot be sustained where the material shows mala fides, non-application of mind, and a mechanical exercise of power, particularly when the detenu is already in custody and the authority fails to demonstrate a real apprehension of future prejudicial conduct.

---