Preventive detention in custody remains valid when authority records awareness of custody, bail likelihood, and ongoing prejudicial conduct.

Preventive detention may be sustained even when the detenu is already in judicial custody, if the detaining authority is aware of that custody, considers the likelihood of release on bail, and records a proper satisfaction based on relevant material. The note also states that detention is not vitiated merely because bail is sought; the decisive question is whether the order addresses continuing prejudicial conduct rather than a collateral or punitive objective. On the facts described, the grounds referred to an ongoing course of illicit foreign exchange activity and a real need for preventive detention, so the challenge based on custody, bail, collateral purpose, and punitive intent failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of preventive detention was invalid because the detenu was already in judicial custody and the detaining authority lacked awareness of that custody and the likelihood of release on bail; (ii) Whether the detention order was vitiated as having been made for a collateral purpose to frustrate bail and as being punitive in nature.

Issue (i): Whether the order of preventive detention was invalid because the detenu was already in judicial custody and the detaining authority lacked awareness of that custody and the likelihood of release on bail?

Analysis: Preventive detention can be sustained even when the person is already in custody, provided the authority is aware of that custody and of the possibility of release on bail, and records a relevant satisfaction as to the need for detention. The grounds of detention showed that the authority was conscious of the detenu's custody position and the pending bail application, and the record also reflected a specific note to that effect before the order was made.

Conclusion: The detention order was not invalid on this ground and the finding was against the detenu.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention order was vitiated as having been made for a collateral purpose to frustrate bail and as being punitive in nature?

Analysis: The purpose of preventive detention is to prevent prejudicial conduct affecting foreign exchange resources, not to secure custody for prosecution or to punish past conduct. On the facts, the grounds disclosed a continuing and interconnected course of illicit foreign exchange activities, large-scale siphoning of funds, use of shell names and foreign firms, and conduct showing a real need for preventive detention. The fact that bail was sought, or that the bail application was not opposed in a particular forum, did not by itself establish a collateral or punitive motive.

Conclusion: The detention order was not shown to be collateral or punitive, and the finding was against the detenu.

Final Conclusion: The detention was upheld as a valid preventive measure based on the authority's recorded satisfaction, and the challenge to it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order can be sustained against a person already in custody if the detaining authority is aware of that custody and the likelihood of bail, and if the detention is based on relevant, continuing prejudicial conduct rather than a collateral or punitive purpose.

---