ORDER Ms. R. BANUMATHI, J. Challenge In this Habeas Corpus Petition is to the detention order, dated 19.8.2008, whereby petitoner's son viz. Kumar @ Minnal Kumar has been detained under T.N. Act 14/82 branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the said Act. 2. 2.The detenu had earlier come to adverse notice in two cases - Madhichiam PS Cime No. 691 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC: Madhichiam PS Crime No. 100 of 2007 under Section 341, 323. 427, 506 (ii)IPC. On 1.6.2007 at about 10.45 hours when Karuppasamy was walking along with Veerayee and was going in front of Kathiresan tea stall, detenu armed with a big knife waylaid both Karuppasamy and Veerayee and demanded a sum of Rs. 500/-. When Karuppasamy replied that he had no money, detenu abused Karuppasamy and placed knife on Karuppasamy's chest, pressed and robbed a sum of Rs. 520/- from Karuppasamy's shirt pocket. When Karuppasamy raised alarm out of fear, crowd gathered and detenu brandished the knife and threatened them that he would stab and kill them, if any one came to catch him. The passersby ran helter-skelter out of panic and the shopkeepers downed the shutters. Thereafter, Karuppasamy went to Madhichiam Police Station and lodged a complaint. On the basis of complaint, a case was registered in Madhichiam PS Crime No. 463 of 2007 under Section 341, 397, 506(ii) IPC. Detenu was surrendered himself on 15.7.2008 before J.M.No.II Madurai and has been remanded to judicial custody. On being satisfied that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, detention order was clamped on him. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner mainly raised two contentions: (i) there was unexplained delay in passing the detention order. (ii) ground of detention referring to only one incident under Section 397 IPC and by such solitary instance, it cannot be said that detenu is habitually committing crimes. 4. We may firstly deal with question of unexplained delay in passing the detention order. We may notice the following dates: Ground case occurrence In Cr. No. 463 of 2007 was on 1.6.2007. Gist of ground case is that while complainant Karuppasamy was walking along with Veerayee, detenu is alleged to have waylaid both Karuppasamy and Veerayee and demanded a sum of Rs. We may notice the following dates: Ground case occurrence In Cr. No. 463 of 2007 was on 1.6.2007. Gist of ground case is that while complainant Karuppasamy was walking along with Veerayee, detenu is alleged to have waylaid both Karuppasamy and Veerayee and demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- for expenses and when Karuppasamy replied that he had no money, detenu is alleged to have placed knife on his chest and robbed a sum of Rs. 520/-. Detenu is alleged to have threatened the public and passerby that he would stab and kill them and therefore the passerby ran helter-skelter out of panic and the shopkeepers downed the shutters which affected the public tranquility. Even though, occurrence in ground case Cr. No. 463 of 2007 was on 1.6.2007, detenu surrendered in the ground case on 15.7.2008 before the Court of JM No. II, Madurai. While in police custody, on 21.7.2008, detenu was interrogated and his confession statement led to recovery of knife under athatchi. After police custody, detenu was produced back in the Court on 21.7.2008 and he was remanded to judicial custody and his remand period was extended till 1.9.2008. During that period i.e. on 19.8.2008, the impugned detention order was passed on the ground that detenu is habitually indulging in a prejudicial activities and if he comes out on ball, he will indulge in future activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 5. Detaining authority mainly referred to the ground case Cr. No. 463 of 2007 (occurrence on 1.6.2007) and said that detenu is habitually committing crimes prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that if he is released on ball, he will indulge in future activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore, there is compelling necessity to pass an order of detention with a view to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future. 6. The chain between the grounds of criminal activity alleged by the detaining authority for the purpose of detention is snapped if there is too long and un-explained delay between offending criminal act and order of detention. 7. 6. The chain between the grounds of criminal activity alleged by the detaining authority for the purpose of detention is snapped if there is too long and un-explained delay between offending criminal act and order of detention. 7. Where order of detention is passed after expiry of long period between the date of criminal incident, prejudicial activity and the date of order of detention, detention order can be challenged on the ground that there is no nexus between the incident and the order of detention. 8. In AIR 1986 SC 610 : (1986) 1 SCC 404 : (1986) SCC (Cr) 74 : (1986) 1 MLJ (Crl) 168, the Supreme Court held as under at p. 171 of MLJ (Crl): "5. ......It is no doubt true that where an unreasonably long period has elapsed between the date of the incident and the date of the order of detention, an inference may legitimately be drawn that there is no nexus between the incident and the order of detention may be liable to be struck down as invalid. But there can be no hard and fast rule as to what is the length of time which should be regarded sufficient to snap the nexus between the incident and the order of detention. We are of the view that here the lapse of time between the date of the incident and the date of the order of detention has been sufficiently explained by the detaining authority and hence we are not prepared to draw the inference of male fides merely because the order of detention happened to be made about five months after the petitioner was found carrying two pieces of foreign marked gold." 9. Whenever there is a delay between the alleged incident or the alleged prejudicial activity and the date of detention, the live link between the prejudicial activity and the apprehension in future is snapped. Of course, if there is any tenable explanation for the gap between the alleged incident and the passing of detention order, the Court would be reluctant to interfere with the detention order, despite the fact that the detention order was passed after a long delay. 10. As we have pointed out earlier, in the instant case, the incident in ground case was on 1.6.2007, wherein the Detenu was alleged to have brandished knife thereby affecting public tranquility. 10. As we have pointed out earlier, in the instant case, the incident in ground case was on 1.6.2007, wherein the Detenu was alleged to have brandished knife thereby affecting public tranquility. Based on the ground case, the Detaining Authority formed a subjective satisfaction that public were put to fear and they ran helter-skelter and that public tranquility was affected. We have pointed out earlier, the Detenu surrendered on 15.7.2008 before Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai Police custody was taken on 21.7.2008 and on the same day, based on the confession statement, knife was recovered. The Detention Order came to be passed only on 19.8.2008. 11. The question arises as to what the Respondents were doing between 1.6.2007 and 19.8.2008. Absolutely, there is no explanation for the delay in passing the Detention Order. The delay in passing the Detention Order and absence of any explanation for delay in passing the Detention Order, in our considered view, vitiates the Detention Order. Absence of explanation would amount no nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity on 1.6.2007 and compulsion for passing the Detention Order. That apart, no material was placed before the Detaining Authority to show that the detenu was continuing with his prejudicial activities between 1.6.2007 till the date of his surrender i.e. on 15.7.2008. In such circumstances, the Detention Order passed after a long lapse of time is liable to be quashed. 12. 12.Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of Detention in No. 66/BDFGISSV of 2008, dated 19.8.2008. passed by the 1st respondent is quashed. The Detenu Kumar @ Minnal Kumar is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required, in accordance with law, in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.