Preventive detention upheld where explained delay and a counter-affidavit reference did not undermine the detention grounds.

Preventive detention was upheld where the delay in passing and executing the detention order was explained by collection of voluminous bank documents, later statements of bank officials, and the time needed to translate and serve the material; the court found no unreasonable or unexplained delay that would break the live and proximate link between the grounds and the object of detention. The detention order was also not invalidated by a counter-affidavit reference to a four-year period of FERA-related activity, because the explanation showed it did not conflict with the detention grounds or undermine the basis of the order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was invalid for unreasonable delay in passing and executing it, thereby snapping the live and proximate link between the grounds and the object of detention. (ii) Whether the statement in the counter affidavit referring to a four-year period of FERA infraction affected the validity of the detention order.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was invalid for unreasonable delay in passing and executing it, thereby snapping the live and proximate link between the grounds and the object of detention.

Analysis: The delay was explained by the collection of voluminous documents from the bank and the recording of later statements of bank officials, which were part of the material placed before the detaining authority. The relevant period for assessing delay was taken from the last material statement relied upon, and the delay in execution was explained by the time required to translate and serve a large volume of documents. On these facts, the delay was not treated as unreasonable or unexplained.

Conclusion: The detention order was not invalid on the ground of delay.

Issue (ii): Whether the statement in the counter affidavit referring to a four-year period of FERA infraction affected the validity of the detention order.

Analysis: The reference to two years related to the detenu's acquaintance with another person, while the reference to four years concerned the period of alleged FERA-infraction activity counted from the date of the reply affidavit. The explanation showed that the statement did not conflict with the grounds of detention or undermine the basis of the order.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated by the challenged statement in the counter affidavit.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the preventive detention order failed on all substantive grounds, and the detention was sustained.

---