Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. The petitioner is the brother-in-law (wife's brother) of the detenu. The order of preventive detention is under Act 14 of 1982 on the ground that the detenu is a bootlegger. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of preventive detention has been passed without proper application of mind regarding the compelling necessity to pass an order of preventive detention in respect of a person already in custody. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of ABDUL SATHAR IBRAHIM MANIK vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1992) 1 SCC page 1. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision is as follows: "Having regard to the various above-cited decisions on the points often raised we find it appropriate to set down our conclusions as under: (1) A detention order can validly be passed even in the case of a person who is already in custody. In such a case, it must appear from the grounds that the authority was aware that the detenu was already in custody. (2) when such awareness is there then it should further appear from the grounds that there was enough material necessitating the detention of the person in custody. This aspect depends upon various considerations and facts and circumstances of each case. If there is a possibility of his being released and on being so released he is likely to indulge in prejudicial activity then that would be one such compelling necessity to pass the detention order. The order cannot be quashed on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and that if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition the same can be questioned before a higher court." 3. In the light of the aforesaid principle, the present detention order is required to be examined. The Collector has indicated as under: "Thiru Vettairajan was remanded at Sub-Jail, Tharangambadi by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mayiladuthurai upto 08-04-2004. Further his remand period has been extended upto 22.04.2004. His bail petition dated 15.04.2004 filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mayiladuthurai was dismissed in Cr.M.P. No. 2393 of 2004, dated 16.04.2004. Later his remand period has been extended upto 06-05-2004. Further his remand period has been extended upto 22.04.2004. His bail petition dated 15.04.2004 filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mayiladuthurai was dismissed in Cr.M.P. No. 2393 of 2004, dated 16.04.2004. Later his remand period has been extended upto 06-05-2004. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that the said Thiru Vettairajan is a Boot-Legger and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and Public Health under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as the recourse of criminal Law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and Public Health." 4. A bare perusal of the aforesaid extracted portion makes it clear that even though the Collector is aware that the person was in custody, there is no conclusion that the person was likely to be released on bail. Law is well settled, even if a person is in prison, a preventive order can be passed provided the authority is satisfied that such person in custody is likely to be released on bail and thereafter likely to indulge in prejudicial activities. In the absence of any satisfaction of the Collector regarding possibility of the person to be released, the order of detention could not have been passed. 5. Accordingly, the order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.