The necessity to place all material, including orders of granting bail, before the detaining authority to enable them to derive subjective satisfaction for the detention.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner through his father for quashing the detention order No. 01/DM/K/PSA of 2021 dated 24.11.2021 issued by the respondent No. 2 under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short the Act) on the following grounds:

(a) that the detaining authority while passing the detention order has not supplied to the petitioner the sufficient material i.e. statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, list of the witnesses, statements made before Judicial Magistrate and other relevant material relied upon by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(b) that the respondent No. 2 while passing the order of detention has not considered the important fact that the petitioner has already been bailed out by the competent court and has not committed any crime, which is heinous in nature.

(c) That the grounds of detention in the dossier submitted by respondent No. 3 has been simply reproduced and there is no subjective satisfaction arrived at on the part of the respondent No. 2 that the detention of the petitioner is necessary.

2. Though the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed the counter affidavits separately, but the counter affidavits have been filed on similar lines. It is stated that the petitioner is a notorious person having criminal mind set and is involved in FIR No. 02/2020 under sections 4/25 Indian Arms Act and 323 IPC, FIR No. 239/2021 under section 3/25 Indian Arms Act and FIR No. 67/2021 under sections 341, 323, 382, 504 and 506 IPC of Police Station, Kishtwar and on the basis of criminal and anti social activities, respondent No. 3 submitted a dossier and the same was examined by respondent No. 2 and after application of mind, detention order under section 8 of the Act was issued. The petitioner was also informed that the petitioner can approach the Advisory Board either himself or through advocate for preferring an appeal against the said order. The petitioner was also informed that he can make representation against the order of detention to respondent No. 2 as also to the Government. On 24.11.2021, the respondent No. 2 wrote a communication to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department and sought the approval/confirmation of the detention order. The Principal Secretary confirmed and approved the detention order vide Government order dated 27.12.2021. Subsequently, the order of detention after the expiry of initial period of three months was also extended. It is stated that the detention order was executed by Inspector Dilraj Singh. Petitioner was handed over the documents and the grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue/petitioner in English and Urdu. In acknowledgement thereof, the petitioner also signed the execution report. In nutshell, the stance of the respondents is that all the procedural safeguards have been followed by the respondents while passing and executing the detention order, as such, there is no illegality in detaining the petitioner.

3. Mr. Azhar Usman Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the grounds of detention do not fall within the purview of 'activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' as defined under section 8 of the Act, as such, there is complete non application of mind on the part of the respondent No. 2 in issuing the detention order. He further argued that the respondent No. 2 has not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on bail in all three aforesaid FIRs, as the respondent No. 3 never furnished the orders granting bail to the respondent No. 2 so as to enable the respondent No. 2 to derive subjective satisfaction that there is necessity to detain the petitioner under the Act.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Eishan Dadhichi, learned GA vehemently argued that all the constitutional as well as procedural safeguards have been meticulously followed by the respondents. Since the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenan