Preventive detention in custody can stand when bail release is likely and future prejudicial activity is rationally apprehended.

Preventive detention may be sustained against a detenu already in custody if the detaining authority is aware of the custody, notes rejection of bail, and records a rational basis to expect release on bail and future prejudicial activity. The order is not vitiated merely because other detention orders were quashed on facts involving a truncated medical report, where the present detention rests on separate and independent material. Delay in service of the declaration under section 10(1), and delay in disposal of the representation, does not invalidate detention where the statutory period for making the declaration was met, the delay is explained, and the detenu's effective right of representation is not shown to have been impaired.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a preventive detention order could be sustained against a detenu already in custody with his bail application rejected and no immediate prospect of release on bail; (ii) whether the detention was vitiated because the grounds of detention of other detenus had been struck down on the basis of a truncated medical report; (iii) whether delay in service of the declaration under section 10(1) and delay in disposal of the representation violated the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation.

Issue (i): whether a preventive detention order could be sustained against a detenu already in custody with his bail application rejected and no immediate prospect of release on bail.

Analysis: The material before the detaining authority showed awareness that the detenu was in judicial custody and that his bail application had been rejected, but the authority also considered the nature of the narcotics case, the detenu's own statements, the quantity and value of the seized contraband, the use of vehicles for transport, and the circumstance that co-accused had been released on bail. On that basis, the authority formed the view that release on bail was likely and that preventive detention was necessary to prevent further prejudicial activity. The order therefore rested on conscious application of mind to custody and the likelihood of future prejudicial conduct.

Conclusion: The detention order was valid on this ground and was not vitiated by the detenu's existing custody.

Issue (ii): whether the detention was vitiated because the grounds of detention of other detenus had been struck down on the basis of a truncated medical report.

Analysis: The quashing of the other detention orders turned on facts peculiar to those cases, where confessional statements and the disputed medical material formed an integral part of the grounds. In the present case, the detention rested on separate and independent materials, including the detenu's own statements and the recovery from his possession and control. The earlier invalidation of other detention orders did not undermine the independent factual foundation of the present order.

Conclusion: The detention order was not invalidated by the quashing of the other detenus' orders.

Issue (iii): whether delay in service of the declaration under section 10(1) and delay in disposal of the representation violated the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation.

Analysis: The declaration under section 10(1) had been made within the statutory period, and the interval in service was explained by the movement of the declaration through the authorities and translation arrangements. The time-limit governing communication of grounds under section 3(3) did not control service of the declaration under section 10(1). The representation was also dealt with and the delay was explained on the record. The detenu was not shown to have been deprived of the opportunity to make an effective representation.

Conclusion: No constitutional or statutory infirmity arose from the alleged delay.

Final Conclusion: The detention was upheld on all substantive challenges, and the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order may validly be made against a person already in custody where the detaining authority is aware of the custody, has material to conclude that release on bail is likely, and records a rational need to prevent future prejudicial activity; collateral defects or delays that do not impair the detenu's effective right of representation do not vitiate the order.

---