Preventive Detention of Person in Custody is Invalid Without Cogent Material Showing Likelihood of Imiminent Release

The Petitioner challenged a Detention Order dated 13.05.2025 and a Confirmation Order dated 29.07.2025 passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act).

The grounds for detention cited four FIRs registered between 1997 and 2024.

Notably, in the most recent FIR (No. 341/2024), the Petitioner’s bail application had been rejected by the High Court on 06.03.2025.

Despite the Petitioner being in judicial custody and having his bail plea rejected, the Detaining Authority issued the order on the grounds that he had a "high propensity" to engage in prejudicial activities in the future.

Whether a preventive detention order can be validly passed against a person already in judicial custody whose bail application has recently been rejected, without recording the likelihood of imminent release.

Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 regarding the power to make orders detaining certain persons.

The court relied on the principle established in Rameshwar Shaw v. D.M. Burdwan, Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad [para. 14], and Kamarunnissa v. Union of India [para. 15], which mandate that for a detention order to be valid against a person in custody, the authority must have "reliable material" to believe there is a "real possibility" of release on bail.

Furthermore, the court considered the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which makes the grant of bail difficult in narcotic cases.

The Court observed that while the Detaining Authority was aware of the Petitioner's judicial custody, it failed to provide any reasons or "subjective satisfaction" regarding the likelihood of his release.

The Authority noted the rejection of the Petitioner’s bail on 06.03.2025 but did not explain how, despite this rejection and the strict standards of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Petitioner posed an immediate threat of resuming illegal activities.

The Court reasoned that a "bald statement" regarding propensity is insufficient [para. 14]; without recording a specific satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released, the nexus between the detention and the purpose of preventing prejudicial activities is broken.

The Court found the Authority's satisfaction to be "perverse" as it ignored the fact that the Petitioner had no immediate prospect of release.

The High Court set aside the Detention Order dated 13.05.2025 and the Confirmation Order dated 29.07.2025.

The petition was allowed, clarifying that these observations do not impact other pending criminal trials against the Petitioner.