As per case facts, the petitioner challenged a 12-month preventive detention order issued by the District Magistrate and confirmed by the State Government, arguing it was based on two recent ... offenses and vague in-camera statements. The petitioner, who was on bail, contended that the detaining authority failed to consider bail conditions and that an unexplained delay of nearly five and half months between the last alleged prejudicial act and the detention order snapped the live link. The reason for the appeal to the Supreme Court was to quash the detention order due to these procedural lapses and the lack of a live link to public order disturbances. The question arose whether such an inordinate and unexplained delay, coupled with a failure to assess bail conditions and reliance on unverified statements, can justify preventive detention when the alleged acts primarily concern law and order rather than public order. Finally, the Supreme Court, applying its established precedents, found the detention order unsustainable, concluding that the unexplained delay severed the live link. It emphasized the detaining authority's non-application of mind regarding bail conditions and the unverified, vague in-camera statements, asserting that mere criminal cases without a direct link to public order disturbances cannot justify preventive detention.