### Absconding proposed detenue cannot challenge preventive detention order at pre-execution stage under Article 226.

The petitioner challenged a detention order dated 02.01.2018 issued under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act

The order was based on allegations that the petitioner gained unauthorized access to the Customs EDI system, tampered with license/scrip values, and utilized them for fraudulent duty payments, causing a loss of ₹73.55 crores to the exchequer

Since the issuance of the order, the petitioner failed to appear despite multiple summons and was declared a Proclaimed Offender by the CMM on 04.05.2017 in criminal proceedings and again on 12.12.2019 under Section 7(1)(a) of the COFEPOSA Act

The petitioner challenged the detention order at the pre-execution stage, arguing that the "live link" between the prejudicial activity and the detention was snapped due to inordinate delay in execution

Whether a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order at the pre-execution stage is maintainable when the proposed detenue is absconding and has been declared a Proclaimed Offender.

The Court applied Section 3(1) and Section 7(1)(a) of the COFEPOSA Act regarding the power to detain and the consequences of absconding

It relied on the Constitution Bench principle from Additional Secretary to the Govt. of India v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia, which established that courts should exercise self-restraint at the pre-execution stage unless one of five limited exceptions is met (e.g., wrong person, lack of jurisdiction, or wrong purpose)

It further applied the ratio from Subhash Popatlal Dave v. Union of India, which clarified that while the Alka Gadia grounds are not exhaustive, a person evading the process of law cannot take advantage of their own conduct to claim the detention has become "stale" due to delay

The Court noted that the petitioner had been declared a Proclaimed Offender twice and had successfully evaded the execution of the detention order for several years

Applying the "self-restraint" doctrine, the Court reasoned that while it possesses the power to review detention orders under Article 226 even before execution, it must refuse to do so for a fugitive from justice

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the "snapping of the live link" theory, holding that allowing such an argument would permit a lawbreaker to benefit from their own defiance of the law

Furthermore, the Court distinguished the case of co-accused Farha Hussain (whose order was quashed), noting that her case involved a finding that she was not deliberately avoiding summons, whereas the present petitioner was a declared absconder

The Writ Petition was dismissed, though the Court left it open for the petitioner to challenge the order on merits after surrendering to the authorities

Petition dismissed