The Delhi High Court has held that a person who has been absconding and evading the execution of a preventive detention order cannot seek relief from the court at the pre-execution stage. 

A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to aid a person who is evading arrest pursuant to a preventive detention order.

The bench refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a detention order issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), emphasizing that courts should exercise restraint when a proposed detenue is deliberately avoiding the process of law.

The case arose from a preventive detention order dated 2 January 2018, issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA. The order directed the detention of the petitioner to prevent him from engaging in activities relating to smuggling and misuse of export incentive licences.

According to the authorities, the investigation began after discrepancies were detected between data maintained by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and the Customs Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) system. It was alleged that export incentive licences (scrips) were fraudulently manipulated to inflate their value after registration, allowing them to be used for payment of customs duties at an enhanced amount.

Investigators claimed that the petitioner had illegally accessed the Customs EDI system using login credentials of customs officers, tampered with licence values, and routed financial transactions through shell companies. The alleged manipulation caused an estimated loss of about ₹73.55 crore to the government exchequer.

Despite multiple summons and investigation notices, the petitioner allegedly failed to appear before authorities. Consequently a criminal complaint was filed for non-compliance with summons. An FIR was registered by the Cyber Crime Cell. Arrest warrants were issued but could not be executed. The petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender. A Look Out Circular was issued against him.

As the detention order could not be executed due to the petitioner’s absence, proceedings were also initiated under Section 7(1)(a) of the COFEPOSA Act, and he was again declared a proclaimed offender in 2019.

The petitioner challenged the detention order at the pre-execution stage, arguing that there was an inordinate delay in executing the detention order, which rendered it stale. Authorities failed to take effective steps to secure his arrest. Preventive detention requires immediacy, and prolonged inaction breaks the “live and proximate link” between the alleged activity and the need for detention. A similar detention order against a co-accused had earlier been quashed by the High Court.

The petitioner relied on Supreme Court precedents including Alka Subhash Gadia v. Union of India and Subhash Popatlal Dave v. Union of India to argue that courts can intervene even before execution of a detention order in exceptional circumstances.

The Union Government opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had deliberately evaded investigation and detention. Courts should not exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of a person who is absconding. Delay in execution cannot invalidate a detention order when the delay is attributable to the conduct of the proposed detenue.

The government argued that allowing such petitions would enable individuals to evade detention and later challenge the order as stale.

The High Court reiterated that while courts have the power to examine preventive detention orders before execution, the exercise of such jurisdiction is extremely limited and subject to self-imposed restraints.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alka Subhash Gadia, the court noted that pre-execution challenges are permissible only in rare situations such as when the order is passed under the wrong law; when it is issued against the wrong person; when it is passed for an improper purpose; when it is based on vague or irrelevant grounds; when the authority lacked jurisdiction

The court further observed that a person who has been declared a proclaimed offender and is evading the law cannot invoke constitutional remedies to avoid the consequences of a detention order.

The bench held that the petitioner had been absconding and had not surrendered to the authorities despite the issuance of warrants and proclamation proceedings. In such circumstances, the court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

The High Court also clarified that the quashing of a detention order in a co-accused’s case could not automatically benefit the petitioner, as that decision was based on the peculiar facts of that case.

The writ petition was dismissed, with the court refusing to interfere with the preventive detention order at the pre-execution stage. However, the bench granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the detention order after surrendering to the authorities and complying with the law.

Case Details

Case Title: Shri Vinod Kumar Pathror Versus Union Of India

Citation: JURISHOUR-259-HC-2026(DEL) 

Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 923/2022

Date: 27.02.2026 

Counsel For  Petitioner: Arvind Kumar Sharma, Sr. Adv. 

Counsel For Respondent: Amit Tiwari, CGSC 

Read More: Revision U/s 263 Invalid Where AO Conducted Proper Inquiry: Calcutta High Court