Preventive detention upheld when relied-upon materials were supplied and custody-based bail risk supported the authority's satisfaction.

Preventive detention was sustained where the detenue was served with the grounds of detention and relied-upon materials, was informed of the right to represent before the detaining authority, the Central Government and the Advisory Board, and no denial of an effective opportunity under Article 22(5) was established. The court also accepted detention of a person already in custody because the authority had considered the custody status, rejection of bail, and material showing a real possibility of release followed by continued prejudicial activity. The subjective satisfaction was not shown to be perverse or based on irrelevant considerations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated for violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India on account of alleged non-supply of relied-upon materials and denial of an effective opportunity to represent against detention; (ii) Whether the detention order passed against a person already in custody was unsustainable for want of a valid basis to infer a real possibility of release on bail and subsequent prejudicial activity.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated for violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India on account of alleged non-supply of relied-upon materials and denial of an effective opportunity to represent against detention.

Analysis: The grounds of detention and the supporting materials were served on the detenue, who was specifically informed of the right to represent to the detaining authority, the Central Government and the Advisory Board. The record showed acknowledgment of receipt of the detention order and relied-upon documents, and no representation was made by the detenue. The Court found that the procedural safeguards required for preventive detention were complied with and that the allegation of incomplete supply of material was not established.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of Article 22(5) failed and was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention order passed against a person already in custody was unsustainable for want of a valid basis to infer a real possibility of release on bail and subsequent prejudicial activity.

Analysis: The detention order specifically noted that the detenue was in judicial custody, that his bail application had been rejected, and that there existed a real possibility of release and a likelihood of continued smuggling activities if released. The Court accepted that the detaining authority had considered the relevant material, including the alleged continuing role in organised smuggling, and rejected the contention that the order rested on a single isolated incident or on irrelevant material. The subjective satisfaction was therefore not shown to be perverse or based on extraneous considerations.

Conclusion: The detention order was held valid on this ground and the challenge was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The detention was found to be supported by compliance with constitutional safeguards and by an adequate basis for preventive action, so judicial interference was not warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order against a person in custody is sustainable when the detaining authority is aware of the custody, has relevant material to infer a real possibility of release on bail, and has supplied the relied-upon materials so as to preserve the detenue's effective right of representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

---