Preventive detention fails where unexplained delay breaks the live link and custody record shows no real prospect of bail release.

Preventive detention was held unsustainable where the authority failed to explain the delay between the alleged prejudicial activity and the detention order, so the live link was treated as broken. The record showed only a seizure and verification of counterfeit currency months earlier, with no fresh material or meaningful development against the detenu after the chargesheet. Detention was also unjustified because the detenu was already in custody, his earlier bail pleas had been rejected, no fresh bail application was pending, and there was no objective material showing a real possibility of release on bail. The detention order and confirming order were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the preventive detention order was vitiated by unexplained delay and snapping of the live link between the incident and detention; (ii) whether a detention order could be sustained when the detenu was already in custody and there was no cogent material to show a real possibility of release on bail.

Issue (i): Whether the preventive detention order was vitiated by unexplained delay and snapping of the live link between the incident and detention.

Analysis: Preventive detention requires proximity between the prejudicial activity and the detention order. Where there is undue delay, the authority must furnish a reasonable and tenable explanation showing why the delay occurred and how the causal connection survived. The seizure and verification of counterfeit currency had already occurred months before the detention order, and the record did not disclose any fresh material or meaningful development concerning the detenu after the chargesheet had been filed. A bare assertion that the live link continued was not enough, because the materials relied upon did not show continuing investigation against the detenu himself during the intervening period.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid on account of unexplained delay and failure to show a subsisting live link.

Issue (ii): Whether a detention order could be sustained when the detenu was already in custody and there was no cogent material to show a real possibility of release on bail.

Analysis: A person already in custody can be preventively detained only if the authority is aware of the custody and has reliable material to believe that release on bail is a real possibility and that prejudicial activity is likely to continue on such release. Here, the detenu's earlier bail applications had been rejected, no fresh bail application was pending, and the record did not contain concrete material indicating imminent release. The apprehension of release was treated as a bare assertion unsupported by objective material, which is insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of subjective satisfaction.

Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained because there was no cogent basis to conclude that the detenu was likely to be released on bail.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order and the confirming order were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention cannot be sustained where the detention order is passed after unexplained delay and, at the time of passing it, the detenu is already in custody without reliable material showing a real possibility of release on bail.

---