Court upholds detention but deems continued detention illegal due to lack of documents and CCTV access.

The court found that the delay in executing the detention order and considering the detenu's representation did not invalidate the detention. However, the failure to provide requested documents and adequate facilities to view CCTV footage rendered the detenu's continued detention illegal. Consequently, the court ordered the detenu's immediate release unless needed in another case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in execution of the detention order.
2. Delay in consideration of the representation.
3. Non-supply of requested documents.
4. Failure to provide facilities to view CCTV footage.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Execution of the Detention Order:
The petitioner challenged the delay of about four years in executing the detention order against the detenu. The petitioner argued that this delay broke the live link between the alleged smuggling activities and the need for preventive detention, citing the case of *Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik v. State of Maharashtra* [AIR 2012 SC 3235]. The court, however, noted that the delay must be examined based on the facts of each case. It acknowledged that the authorities had taken all possible steps to serve the detention order, including affixture at the detenu’s house, Gazette notification, and publication in vernacular newspapers. The court concluded that the detenu was likely aware of the order and had absconded, thus rejecting the argument that the delay vitiated the detention order.

2. Delay in Consideration of the Representation:
The petitioner contended that there was an inordinate delay in considering the detenu’s representations dated 11.02.2019 and 12.02.2019, which were disposed of only on 18.04.2019. The court referred to precedents, including *Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India* [1980(4) SCC 531] and *K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India & Others* [(1991) 1 SCC 476], to determine the necessity of timely consideration. It was found that the representations were forwarded to the Advisory Board, which affirmed the detention order. The Central Government then considered the representations and issued orders on 18.04.2019. The court held that there was no undue delay in the consideration of the representations.

3. Non-supply of Requested Documents:
The detenu requested several documents, including details of proceedings against co-accused and copies of adjudication orders, which were not supplied. The court emphasized the importance of providing all relevant documents to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. It noted that the authorities failed to supply the decision in favor of co-noticees (Ext. P11), which was crucial for the detenu’s defense. The court cited *Shalini Soni v. Union of India* [1980(4) SCC 544] and *Muhammed Zakir V Delhi Administration* [1982(3) SCC 216], highlighting that non-supply of relevant documents vitiates the detention process.

4. Failure to Provide Facilities to View CCTV Footage:
The detenu argued that he was not provided with sufficient facilities to view the CCTV footage, which was a critical piece of evidence. The court noted that while the authorities had directed the Superintendent of Central Prison to provide facilities for viewing the footage, there was no evidence that the detenu was given a genuine opportunity to do so. The court found that the failure to provide such facilities prejudiced the detenu’s ability to make an effective representation. This failure was particularly egregious given that a similar issue had previously led to the setting aside of detention orders against other co-accused in W.A. (Crl.) No. 386/2015.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that while the grounds of delay in execution of the detention order and delay in consideration of the representation did not vitiate the detention order, the non-supply of Ext. P11 and the failure to provide sufficient facilities to view the CCTV footage rendered the continued detention of the detenu illegal. The court directed the immediate release of the detenu, provided his detention was not required in any other case.

---