COFEPOSA detention period runs from actual custody, parole counts, and re-detention needs a live temporal nexus.

Under COFEPOSA, the maximum detention period is reckoned from the date of actual detention, not from the date of the detention order, and parole ordinarily does not interrupt that running period because the detenu remains in constructive custody unless the parole terms or rules say otherwise. Where a detention order is later quashed and then restored on appeal, re-detention for the balance period is not automatic; it depends on whether a proximate temporal nexus with the original detention purpose still exists and whether the statutory maximum has not expired. If a long lapse has occurred and the maximum period is over, further detention is not justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the maximum period of preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act is to be computed from the date of actual detention and whether the period spent on parole counts towards that maximum period; (ii) Whether, after an order of detention has been quashed by the High Court and later restored on appeal, the detenu can be required to undergo the remaining period of detention after a long lapse of time.

Issue (i): Whether the maximum period of preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act is to be computed from the date of actual detention and whether the period spent on parole counts towards that maximum period.

Analysis: Section 10 of the COFEPOSA Act fixes the maximum period of detention and prescribes the method of computation. The period runs from the date of actual detention, not from the date of the detention order. Parole is only a temporary release and does not suspend or interrupt detention. A detenu on parole remains under constructive custody and the detention period continues to run unless the terms of parole or the governing rules expressly provide otherwise. The Act also contemplates that temporary release may be granted administratively under Section 12, while Section 12(6) restricts release during subsistence of a detention order.

Conclusion: The period of detention is computed from the date of actual detention, and the period spent on parole is counted towards the total period of detention unless the parole conditions or applicable rules provide to the contrary.

Issue (ii): Whether, after an order of detention has been quashed by the High Court and later restored on appeal, the detenu can be required to undergo the remaining period of detention after a long lapse of time.

Analysis: Where the High Court's quashing of detention has resulted in the detenu being at liberty, the appellate court may examine whether a proximate temporal nexus still exists between the original detention purpose and the date of proposed re-detention. If a long period has elapsed and the maximum period of detention has already expired, continued detention is not ordinarily warranted. If, however, the lapse is short or the original maximum period has not expired, the detenu may be required to undergo the balance period, subject always to the statutory ceiling.

Conclusion: Re-detention for the remaining period is not automatic and depends on the lapse of time and the continued existence of a proximate nexus; after a long lapse and expiry of the maximum period, further detention is not justified.

Final Conclusion: The detention period under COFEPOSA is to be reckoned from actual detention, parole ordinarily counts as part of that period, and re-detention after a judicial reversal depends on whether a live temporal nexus still survives within the statutory maximum.

Ratio Decidendi: Under COFEPOSA, preventive detention runs from actual custody, parole does not ordinarily interrupt the running of detention, and any renewed detention after judicial release is permissible only within the statutory maximum and where a proximate nexus with the original detention purpose still exists.

---