Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, (1982) 2 SCC 403: Preventive Detention is devised to afford protection to society. Sk. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 395: if there is any delay in arresting, pursuant to ‘order of detention’, which is prima facie unreasonable, State must give reasons explaining. Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1979) 1 SCC 465: where delay is not only adequately explained but is found to be result of recalcitrant or refractory conduct of detenu in evading arrest, there is warrant to consider ‘live and proximate link’ not ‘snapped’ but strengthened. Shafiq Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Meerut, (1989) 4 SCC 556: whether delay was unreasonable depends on facts and circumstances of each case.
It is manifestly clear, if there is unreasonable delay between date of ‘order of detention’ & actual arrest, such delay, unless satisfactorily explained, renders ‘detention order’ bad and invalid.
– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, [Criminal Appeal No. 1708 of 2022].