Preventive detention requires fresh grounds post-quashing; failure to consider representation in a timely manner renders detention illegal.

1. The judgment and order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Bench ('the impugned judgment' for short) in WP(Crl) No. 239/2023(AIROnLine 2024 J&K 258), is under challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant, whereby the Habeas Corpus Petition, filed by the appellant, was dismissed with the following observations: -
"...Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the representation made by him to the Home Department has not been processed and considered by the concerned authorities and as such valuable right of the petitioner being considered for release on the representation made by him has been lost. The counsel has refereed to annexure 4 in support of his contention that representation was duly preferred before the Home Department. It is not revealed from annexure - 4, alleged representation, that the same was in fact presented / filed before the competent authority for consideration. May be, the representation even if prepared has remained with the father of the petitioner only through whom it was prepared. The petitioner cannot raise grouse that the representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the authorities as the same never reached concerned quarter.
The reliance placed upon AIR 2000 SC 2504 titled State of Maharashtra and others v. Santosh Shankar Acharya , wherein the Apex Court emphasized the requirement of communication of outcome of the representation made by the detenue before the concerned authorities. This authority has no application in the instant case as the representation itself is held not filed by the petitioner before the authorities. Hence, there is no question of communicating the outcome of the representation to the petitioner.
Viewed in the light of aforesaid discussion, the petition is misconceived. The detention order passed against the petitioner is in accordance with law and is upheld. The petition is accordingly dismissed."

2. The case, as projected by the appellant, is that the judgment impugned, on the face of it, is liable to be set aside, as the same is contrary to law and justice and has been passed in clear violation of constitutional mandate guaranteeing fundamental right of liberty and freedom. It is further pleaded in the appeal that it was the admitted case before the learned Single Bench that the appellant - detenue was already detained under Public Safety Act by the detaining authority and while passing detention order, earlier grounds of detention have also been taken into consideration. That detention order against the appellant - detenue, however, came to be quashed by this Court. Next, it is pleaded that the learned Single Bench has not considered the fact that the appellant - detenue had duly submitted representation before the concerned authority, however, same has not been considered by the concerned authority. The fact of filing representation before the concerned authority is not denied by the respondents, even then the learned Single Bench has recorded, in the impugned judgment, that the representation seems to have remained with the father of the detenue and not sent to the concerned authority.

3. It has been next alleged that the appellant - detenue was illegally arrested and illegal proceedings under S.107 and S.151 CrPC were initiated and illegally the appellant - detenue was made to execute a bond, undertaking that detenue will not indulge in any illegal act