Preventive detention of person in custody is invalid without cogent material showing likelihood of bail and future prejudicial activity.

The petitioner challenged a Detention Order dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988.

The Detaining Authority cited three NDPS cases: a 2013 conviction (sentence suspended), a 2019 case (on bail), and a 2024 case (F.I.R. 43/2024) where the petitioner was in judicial custody at the time of the order.

The authority also relied on the criminal involvement of the petitioner's wife and sons.

The petitioner argued the order was passed without considering that he had not applied for bail in the pending case, suffered from inordinate delay in execution, and involved a failure to supply relied-upon documents in a language he understood (Urdu).

1. Whether a preventive detention order is valid when passed against a person already in judicial custody who has not applied for bail.

2. Whether the non-supply of relied-upon documents in a language understood by the detenu violates Fundamental Rights under Article 22(5).

3. Whether inordinate delay in passing and executing the detention order snaps the "live link" between the grounds and the purpose of detention.

The court applied Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 regarding preventive detention.

It relied on the principle from *Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. UOI* and *Roshini Devi v. State of Telangana*, holding that for a person in custody, the authority must show a "likelihood of release" based on cogent material.

Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the court applied the doctrine from *Jaseela Shaji v. UOI*, requiring documents to be furnished in a language the detenu understands to ensure an "effective representation".

Furthermore, *Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura* established that unexplained delay in execution casts doubt on the genuineness of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.

The Court found the subjective satisfaction flawed as the Detaining Authority failed to address why detention was necessary when the petitioner was already in jail and had not sought bail.

The Court noted that the authority relied on "extraneous material" regarding the petitioner’s family members without explaining their specific relevance to his detention.

Crucially, the non-supply of a translated copy (Urdu) of the co-accused’s bail rejection order—a relied-upon document—was held to be a fatal procedural lapse that hindered the petitioner’s right to represent his case.

Finally, the Court observed an unexplained 7-month delay between the proposal and the order, and a further delay in execution, which severed the "live link" required for preventive necessity.

The High Court set aside the Detention Order dated 20.03.2025 and directed that the petitioner no longer be kept in preventive detention pursuant to said order.

The writ petition was allowed.