1. Impugned in this petition is the Order no.65/DMB/PSA/2017 dated 21.08.2017, of District Magistrate, Baramulla (for short “detaining authority”), placing one Irfan Ahmad Lone son of Mohammad Abdullah Lone resident of Bilal Colony, Qamarwari, Srinagar (for brevity “detenu”) under preventive detention to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State.

2. The case set up in the petition is that the detenu was arrested on 08.08.2018 by police station Pattan and booked in the case FIR no.163/2018, but before he could file an application for grant of bail before the competent court, respondent no.3 addressed a communication dated 14.08.2018 to respondent no.2, for detaining the detenu and that the respondent no.2 in terms the impugned detention order placed him under preventive detention and lodged him in Central Jail, Kotebhalwal, Jammu. The said information, it is averred, was given to the detenu by respondent no.2, vide communication no.DMB/PSA/2018/326-30 dated 20.08.2018, with which he was also furnished the grounds of detention.

3. The counter affidavit has not been filed by the respondents. However, the detention record has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondents that will furnish help in deciding the instant case.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the pleadings as also the detention record made available by the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the grounds of detention, served upon the detenu, are vague, uncertain, untrue, baseless and ambiguous, and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. Therefore, the passing of the detention on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable. It is also stated that neither the copies of FIRs and other material have not been furnished to the detenu to enable him to make a representation. The learned counsel has further contended that respondent no.2 has stated in the grounds of detention that even though the detenu has been arrested in case FIR no.163/2018 and is in police custody, but there is every likelihood of he being admitted to bail, but the detaining authority has nowhere mentioned that as to how there was a likelihood of the detenu being admitted to bail in the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention have not been read over or explained to the detenu by respondent no.2 or anybody on his behalf in the language which he understands viz. Urdu/Kashmiri. He has also not been provided the translated copies of the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation against his order of detention to the appropriate authority. According to the counsel for the petitioner when a person is booked under a substantive offence, he cannot be placed under preventive detention unless there are compelling reasons for doing so and those compelling reasons have to be stated in the order or in the grounds of detention. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the detenu was already in the custody in relation to a criminal case; neither had he applied for bail nor bail was otherwise granted to him and the detaining authority has not given any justified reason to pass the detention order if he was already in custody in relation to a criminal case. To reinforce his submissions, counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Razia Umar Bakshi v. Union of India and ors 1980 AIR SC 1751; Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. & others; Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu & another, (2011) 5 SCC 244; and Sama Aruna v. State of Telengana AIR 2017 SC 2662.

6. While opposing the writ petition, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the detention order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and that the grounds of detention sufficiently connect the detenu with the activities, which are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State. He has also contended