Preventive detention fails where a material bail condition and compliance are withheld from the detaining authority's consideration.

Preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act was challenged on the ground that the detaining authority was not informed of a material bail condition requiring daily attendance before the Customs Department, or of the detenu's compliance with it. The text states that this circumstance was vital to the authority's subjective satisfaction and had a direct bearing on whether detention was necessary. Non-consideration of that relevant fact amounted to failure to apply mind to a material factor, rendering the detention order unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order was vitiated because the detaining authority was not apprised of the bail condition requiring daily attendance before the Customs Department and the detenu's compliance with that condition.

Analysis: The detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was challenged on the ground that a material circumstance affecting the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction had been withheld. The record showed awareness only that bail had been granted, but not that the Magistrate had imposed a condition of daily attendance or that the condition had been complied with. In preventive detention matters, such a fact was of vital importance and had a direct bearing on the decision to detain. Non-consideration of that material circumstance amounted to failure to apply mind to a relevant factor.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and stood quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order failed for want of consideration of a vital material fact bearing on subjective satisfaction, and the petitioner was entitled to release.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention is invalid where a material fact bearing on the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction is withheld from consideration.

---