Preventive detention invalidated for unexplained delay, non-consideration of vital material, and inconsistent treatment of an identically placed co-detenue.

Preventive detention is invalid where unexplained delay breaks the live-link between past prejudicial activity and the detention order, because the authority must show that the necessity for detention remained current. The order is also vitiated when vital material, including bail, anticipatory bail, retraction and later adjudicatory developments, is not placed before or considered by the detaining authority, as this undermines subjective satisfaction. Further, differential treatment of a co-detenue on substantially identical facts, without a cogent distinction, indicates non-application of mind. On these grounds, the detention order could not stand and the detenue was entitled to release.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated by inordinate delay and lack of a live-link between the prejudicial activities and the order of detention; (ii) whether non-supply and non-consideration of vital documents, including the bail and retraction-related materials, vitiated the subjective satisfaction; (iii) whether differential treatment in the case of a co-detenue with an identical role showed non-application of mind and invalidated the detention order.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated by inordinate delay and lack of a live-link between the prejudicial activities and the order of detention.

Analysis: The last alleged prejudicial act was in August 2017, while the detention order was passed on 11.05.2018. In preventive detention matters, the interval is not tested mechanically, but the detaining authority must satisfactorily explain the delay and preserve the causal connection between the prejudicial activity and the need for detention. The explanation offered did not show why the nexus remained alive, and no independent offence had been registered against the detenue to support the continued necessity of detention.

Conclusion: The detention order was held to be vitiated by unexplained delay and the snapping of the live-link.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply and non-consideration of vital documents, including the bail and retraction-related materials, vitiated the subjective satisfaction.

Analysis: The materials relating to regular bail, anticipatory bail, and retraction of statements were treated as vital because they bore directly on the grounds of detention and could have influenced the detaining authority one way or the other. Failure to place such material before the detaining authority amounted to ignoring relevant facts that were necessary for forming valid subjective satisfaction. The same defect applied to the later developments and adjudicatory materials that arose before the detention order was executed.

Conclusion: The subjective satisfaction was vitiated by non-supply and non-consideration of vital material.

Issue (iii): Whether differential treatment in the case of a co-detenue with an identical role showed non-application of mind and invalidated the detention order.

Analysis: The record showed that the co-detenue had been proceeded against on substantially identical facts and his detention had been revoked, while the detenu's role was not shown to be materially distinct. Where the grounds and factual foundation are substantially the same, unequal treatment without a cogent basis indicates that the authority has not applied its mind consistently to the preventive detention decision.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid for want of parity and for non-application of mind.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order could not stand, and the detenue was entitled to release, with the connected proceedings rendered unnecessary.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, unexplained delay, failure to consider vital and relevant material, and inconsistent treatment of identically placed persons each vitiate the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and render the detention order illegal.

---