Preventive detention of an undertrial in custody requires concrete material on imminent bail, not mere unsupported satisfaction.

Preventive detention of a person already in custody is sustainable only if the detaining authority knows of the custody and records cogent material showing a real likelihood of imminent release on bail, followed by likely prejudicial conduct. On the stated facts, repeated rejection of bail, the detenu's serious illness and hospitalization, and the absence of material supporting imminent bail meant the satisfaction that release was likely was unsupported and amounted to mere ipse dixit. Reliance on Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also unavailable because it was not reflected in the detention record and the relevant stage had not arisen. The detention order was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order was sustainable when the detenu was already in custody and the detaining authority's satisfaction that he was likely to be released on bail was not supported by material.

Analysis: A preventive detention order against a person already in custody can stand only where the detaining authority is aware of the custody and there are compelling reasons justifying detention, including cogent material showing that the detenu is likely to be released in the near future and, upon release, is likely to engage in prejudicial activity. The record showed repeated rejection of the detenu's bail applications, serious illness and hospitalization, and no material indicating an imminent grant of bail. The reliance on Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also unavailable because it was not a ground reflected in the detention record and the relevant stage for its application had not arisen. The conclusion that bail was imminent was therefore unsupported and amounted to mere ipse dixit.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and was set aside; the writ petition was allowed to that extent.

---