1. By virtue of order bearing No.DMB/PSA/12/2018 dated 30.08.2018, passed by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Budgam, in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, Mushtaq Ahmad Mir son Ghulam Rasool Mir resident of Banagund Chadoora, Budgam, has been taken into preventive custody and lodged in District Jail, Kathua, Jammu. Veracity of the said order is assailed in the instant petition on the grounds detailed out therein.

2. The petitioner’s case, as set out in the petition, is that the detenue, on 25.08.2018, was booked in connection with case FIR No.60/2017 registered by Police Station, Chadoora under Section 307, 148, 149, 336, 332 RPC and there after impugned detention order was slapped upon him. The allegations/grounds of detention are stated to be vague and mere assertions. The detenue had applied for bail which was granted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chadoora but the said fact has not been made mention of in the grounds of detention. The respondents are stated to have ignored to provide material relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention and thus deprived the detenue of his Constitutional and Statutory rights. Grounds of detention are stated to be vague, baseless, non-existent and unfounded.

3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention were handed over to the detenue and same were read over and explained to him. The grounds taken by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. The learned counsel for the respondents has made available detention records to lend support to the case set up in the counter affidavit.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

5. Firstly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the detenue had been admitted to bail in FIR No.60/2018 which fact has not been made mention of in the grounds of detention though reference to said FIR has been made. Either detaining authority has been kept in dark or otherwise detaining authority has not applied its mind properly. While detaining a person under Public Safety Act, detaining authority is under a legal obligation to analyze all the circumstances and material and then to gather conclusion about the requirement of depriving a person of his personal liberty. Non-mention about the grant of bail is serious lapse which in turn gives rise to the inference that there is non-application of mind. Similar situation has been dealt with by the Apex Court. It is quite relevant to quote following portion from para 8 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and Another” reported in AIR 1987 SC 137:—

“We hold that there was clear non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority about the fact that the petitioner was granted bail when the order of detention was passed. In the result we set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court under appeal, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith……”

6. Next, it is further projected that when the detenue was already in custody, there was no need to direct his preventive detention. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the detenue is involved in FIR No.60/2018 registered in Police Station, Chadoora and his arrest in the said FIR, at the time of passing of the order of detention, has not been disputed.

7. The object of passing the order of detention is to deter a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or public order. When the movement of the person is already under curtailment i.e. is in custody in connection with a criminal case, then there can be no requirement of preventive detent