Preventive detention sustained where proximate adverse cases, public order disturbance, and no real Article 22(5) breach were found.

Detention was upheld because the adverse cases were proximate in time and could not be treated as stale, supporting the authority's inference of habitual offending. The incident was also treated as affecting public order, as the materials showed threats, damage to property, panic, and dispersal of nearby shopkeepers, and the Court found no basis to disturb that subjective satisfaction. The bail reference and the later addition of the property-damage offence did not show non-application of mind. The Court further held that no enforceable violation of Article 22(5) arose from the representation being received one day before governmental approval, so the habeas corpus petition failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the adverse cases relied on were stale so as to vitiate the conclusion that the detenu was a habitual offender; (ii) whether the incident disclosed only a law and order problem and not a disturbance of public order; (iii) whether the reference to bail and the omission concerning the later addition of the offence under the damage-to-public-property law showed non-application of mind; and (iv) whether non-consideration of the detenu's representation by the detaining authority before approval of the detention order violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether the adverse cases relied on were stale so as to vitiate the conclusion that the detenu was a habitual offender.

Analysis: The adverse cases were spread over 2008, 2010, and 2011, while the ground case was also in 2011. The incidents in 2010 occurred within a short span, and the latest ground case was proximate in time. On those facts, the earlier cases could not be treated as stale, and the detention authority had material to infer habitual offending.

Conclusion: This contention failed and the finding of habitual offending was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the incident disclosed only a law and order problem and not a disturbance of public order.

Analysis: The materials showed that the detenu and associates allegedly threatened the victim and the gathered public, damaged the shop property, and created panic, causing nearby shopkeepers and others to disperse. The conclusion on public order rested on the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction supported by witness statements, and the Court did not find a basis to interfere with that satisfaction on the record.

Conclusion: The challenge on the public order ground was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the reference to bail and the omission concerning the later addition of the offence under the damage-to-public-property law showed non-application of mind.

Analysis: The detenu was already in remand only in the ground case, and the detaining authority's concern was the likelihood of release on bail in that case. The earlier bail position in the adverse case did not cause prejudice, and the later inclusion of the additional offence in the final report did not require clarification for the purpose for which the earlier case was relied upon, namely to show past offending and propensity.

Conclusion: No vitiating non-application of mind was established.

Issue (iv): whether non-consideration of the detenu's representation by the detaining authority before approval of the detention order violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detenu's representation was received by the detaining authority one day before the detention order was approved by the Government. In the absence of any meaningful time gap, and in view of the approval having intervened immediately, the Court held that no enforceable infraction of the detenu's right under Article 22(5) was made out on these facts.

Conclusion: There was no violation of Article 22(5) on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was sustained, and the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order will not be set aside where the authority has relevant, proximate materials to infer habitual offending and disturbance of public order, and where no real violation of the detenu's representation right is shown before governmental approval.

---