Preventive detention remains valid when execution delay is explained by absconding and no prejudice arises from missing particulars.

Preventive detention intended to forestall smuggling is not vitiated by delay in executing the order where the delay is satisfactorily explained by the detenu's own absconding and efforts to secure arrest, because the live and proximate link between the grounds and the detention purpose remains intact. The discussion also states that non-furnishing of intelligence-report particulars does not by itself violate the right to effective representation when the grounds are specific, no further particulars were sought, and no prejudice is shown. On that reasoning, the detention was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the long delay in executing the detention order had the effect of snapping the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the object of preventive detention; (ii) whether non-furnishing of the intelligence-report particulars vitiated the detention for denial of the constitutional right to make an effective representation.

Issue (i): whether the long delay in executing the detention order had the effect of snapping the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the object of preventive detention.

Analysis: Preventive detention under the statute is intended to forestall smuggling activities and not to punish past conduct. A long unexplained delay may, in an appropriate case, break the necessary live and proximate link between the grounds and the purpose of detention. Here, however, the delay was fully explained by the detenu's own absconding, proclamation as an absconder, publication of notices, and other efforts to secure his arrest. In such circumstances, the delay did not weaken the detention grounds.

Conclusion: The challenge based on delay failed and the detention order was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether non-furnishing of the intelligence-report particulars vitiated the detention for denial of the constitutional right to make an effective representation.

Analysis: A detenu is entitled to be supplied with the essential particulars forming the basis of the grounds of detention so as to enable an effective representation. But where the grounds are specific and the detenu never sought further particulars, the omission to furnish the identity of the intelligence officer or the underlying report does not by itself establish denial of a reasonable opportunity. The record also showed that the adjudication material had been before the detaining authority and that no prejudice was demonstrated.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Article 22(5) failed and the detention order was not invalid on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The detention was upheld and both the appeal and the writ petition were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in executing a preventive detention order does not invalidate it where the delay is satisfactorily explained by the detenu's own evasion, and a detention order is not vitiated merely because additional particulars were not furnished when the grounds were specific and no request for further particulars was made.

---