Preventive detention cannot rest on anticipated bail inferred from a materially dissimilar case.

The petitioner was detained as a “sexual offender” under the District Collector’s order dated 11 May 2026 in Cr.M.P. No. 09 of 2026. He challenged the order by habeas corpus petition.

The alleged occurrence was on 9 April 2026; the petitioner argued that the 31-day interval before the detention order broke the live and proximate link

He also contended that the authority’s reliance on a bail order in another case was misplaced: that case involved a relationship and a promise of marriage, whereas the present allegation was rape of the de facto complainant’s stepdaughter

The State submitted that the alleged act was grave, the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet was pending committal; it also noted that the petitioner’s bail application had been dismissed

1. Whether the 31-day interval between the alleged occurrence and the detention order snapped the live and proximate link necessary to sustain the detention

2. Whether reliance on a bail order in a materially different case could support the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction in this case

The Court relied on Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333, for the principle that an unreasonable and unexplained delay between the relevant events and the detention order may cast doubt on the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction by snapping the live and proximate link; whether delay is unreasonable depends on the facts and circumstances of each case

The Court also relied on Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 976, as a decision it considered applicable to the case.

The judgment does not identify a specific statutory provision as the basis for its decision

The Court recorded the petitioner’s contention that the 31-day interval undermined the requisite live and proximate link

It also noted that the bail order relied on by the detaining authority concerned a different factual situation—an alleged relationship and promise of marriage—and was not compatible with the present allegation of rape of the complainant’s stepdaughter. In light of that distinction and the cited decision in Alagu, the Court was persuaded to interfere with the detention order

It directed that Saravanan be released forthwith, unless his detention was required in connection with another case.