Preventive detention fails where unexplained delay breaks the live link between detention grounds and preventive purpose.

A preventive detention order based on a solitary seizure was quashed because it was executed after an undue and unexplained delay. The record did not show serious or genuine efforts to secure the detenu, and his intervening appearance before customs authorities weakened the claim that he was evading arrest. The Court found that the long lapse broke the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the preventive purpose, rendering the detention unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order could be sustained in view of the undue and unreasonable delay in executing it and the consequent snapping of the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention.

Analysis: The detention order was passed on the basis of a solitary seizure, but it was served only after a long gap. The delay in securing the detenu was not satisfactorily explained, and the record did not show serious or genuine efforts to execute the order. The detenu's appearance before the customs authorities during the intervening period further undermined the explanation that he was evading arrest. In these circumstances, the Court held that the detention remained unexecuted for an unreasonable period, and the nexus between the detention grounds and the preventive purpose had been broken.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and was quashed in favour of the appellant.

---