As per case facts, the Petitioner was detained for 12 months under the MPDA Act as a "dangerous person" based on two recent offenses and two in-camera statements, with the ... detaining authority claiming subjective satisfaction to prevent acts prejudicial to public order. The Petitioner challenged this detention, arguing that relevant bail documents were not considered, there was an unexplained delay of almost three months between the last alleged act and the detention order, and the in-camera statements were vague and unverified. The question arose whether the detention order was valid given the significant delay, the detaining authority's failure to consider bail conditions, and the vagueness of the supporting evidence, thereby snapping the live link between the alleged acts and the necessity of detention. Finally, the court found the detention order unsustainable due to the unexplained delay, which snapped the live link. It also noted the non-application of mind by the detaining authority regarding bail orders and conditions. The court emphasized that vague, unverified in-camera statements cannot form the basis of detention, and the alleged acts affected law and order, not public order, thus quashing the detention and confirmation orders.