Court holds that unexplained gap between last alleged narcotics case and detention order broke the “live and proximate link” required to justify preventive detention under PIT NDPS Act.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a preventive detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, holding that an unexplained delay of nearly two years from the last alleged prejudicial activity destroyed the legal basis for detention.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by P. Rahul and another challenging the detention of P. Parandamu @ Parandamaiah. The detention order, issued on November 21, 2025, had been confirmed on January 13, 2026.
The detaining authority had relied on seven NDPS cases registered between 2011 and 2023 to justify preventive detention. However, the Court noted that the last incident cited in the grounds of detention occurred on April 3, 2023, while the detention order was passed only in November 2025.
The petitioners argued that the long delay between the alleged last offence and the detention order was neither explained nor justified. The State, on the other hand, contended that the detenu’s repeated involvement in narcotics-related offences showed a continuing propensity to indulge in illicit trafficking and therefore maintained the live and proximate link required for preventive detention.
Rejecting the State’s stand, the Court reiterated that preventive detention law requires a proximate and continuous link between prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. The Bench relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Mohd. Sahabuddin v. District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, Rajinder Arora v. Union of India, and T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, to hold that undue and unexplained delay can snap the causal connection between the alleged acts and the detention order.
The Court observed that there is no rigid formula for calculating delay in months or years, but where the delay is “undue, long and unexplained,” the detaining authority must provide a satisfactory explanation. In the present case, no such justification was found. The Bench held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority had lost its proximate rational nexus with the alleged criminal incidents.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed both the detention order dated November 21, 2025, and the confirmation order dated January 13, 2026. It directed that the detenu be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Bottom Line :
Preventive detention under PIT NDPS Act cannot be sustained where detention order is passed after long unexplained delay from the last prejudicial activity; such delay snaps the live and proximate link between alleged criminal activities and the purpose of detention.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226, Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988
P. Rahul v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987213
