The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing relevant grounds of detention and material to the detenu for making an effective representation against the detention order.

Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.

1. The instant LPA is filed seeking reversal of judgment and order dated 28.03.2016, for short impugned order, passed in a habeas corpus petition, for short HCP No. 11 of 2016, titled Jahangeer Ahmad Khan v. State & Anr., by virtue of which the petition has been dismissed being meritless. Before the grounds of challenge could be narrated, the dispute in brief, would be appropriate to refer to, thus:-

2. A petition, challenging the order of detention being Order No. DIVCOM "K717/2016, dated 4th February, 2016, issued by respondent No. 2, ordering preventive detention of detenue in terms of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, was filed before the Writ Court seeking its quashment on the grounds detailed as under:

"(a). That no compelling reason or circumstance was disclosed in the order or grounds of detention to take the detenue in preventive detention, moreso in view of the fact that when the detenue was already implicated in FIR Nos. 72/2015 P/s Kreeri and 219/2015, registered at P/s Pattan.

(b). That the detenue has been furnished the grounds of detention without the supporting material warranting such detention, therefore, detenue could not make the effective representation against his detention. Omission on the part of detaining authority in not providing the supporting material vitiates the process of detention and renders the order of detention as illegal and violative of fundamental right guaranteed to the detenue.

(c). That the order of detention is neither approved within the statutory period nor has any reference been made to the Advisory Board.

(d). That the order of detention has been executed with inordinate delay which too renders the detention of the detenue bad in law."

3. A specific plea was raised in the petition that petitioner/appellant is innocent; is not involved any criminal activity; has been bailed out by the competent court of law after having been apprehended in case FIR No. 219/2015, of Police Station Pattan for being in possession of 61 bottles of Onrex.

4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition of the detenue, on the ground that detenue appears to have been apprehended for more than one occasion in the similar kind of activities, therefore, he deserves to be kept in preventive detention so that society at large is saved from his evil designs.

5. Feeling aggrieved of the dismissal, the instant LPA has been filed seeking reversal of the judgment on the ground that learned Single Judge has erred in law in not appreciating the controversy in its right perspective. It is pleaded that the appellant/detenue had very specifically averred in his petition that the detaining authority, respondent No. 2, has violated the law on the subject while detaining the appellant; that there was total non-application of mind on the part of respondent No. 2 in detaining the appellant; that no material was furnished to the detenue along with the grounds of detention, so as to enable him to make effective representation against his detention; that there is no whisper about the grounds having been urged by the appellant in support of his case inasmuch as no finding at all is coming forth from the impugned order to demonstrate the reasons of rejecting the petition of the appellant.

6. It is further the case of appellant that the ground taken in the grounds of detention that appellant is shown to be a member of the organized drug trafficking gang working in District Baramulla, is not supported by any material, thereby rendering the same as non-est in the eyes of law.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made.

8. Learned counsel for appellant submits that impugned order is bad as the same only reiterates what is urged in the grounds of detention. He further submits that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of respondent No. 2 in issuing the order of deten