1) By virtue of order bearing No.131/DMS/PSA/2018 dated 05.09.2018, passed by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Shopian, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, Faisal Amin Mir son of Mohammad Amin Mir resident of Bonbazar Shopian (hereinafter referred as the detenue), has been taken into preventive custody and lodged in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. Legality and veracity of the said order is assailed in the instant petition on the grounds detailed out therein.

2) The petitioner9s case, as set out in the petition, is that the detenue was arrested by the police and booked in several FIRs, one after the other. Even though detenue was granted bail in FIR Nos.64/2014, 7/2014, 76/2014, 78/2014, 83/2014 and 121/2014 but was not released and instead was detained under the provisions of J&K Public Safety act in terms of impugned order. The allegations/grounds of detention are stated to be vague and mere assertions. 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 and there has been non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the detention order.

3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and stated that the respondents have followed the provisions of Public Safety Act. The detenue has been detained only after following due procedure. The grounds of detention were read over the detenue. There has been proper application of mind for detaining the detenue and the detenue has been provided all the material. The learned counsel for the respondents also produced the detention records to lend support to the stand taken 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 while passing the detention order, the detaining authority, besides others, has relied on FIR Nos.120/2017, 168/2017, 30/2018, 36/2018, 59/2018, 69/2018, 92/2018 and 183/2018, in which he had neither applied for bail nor there was any likelihood of his being granted bail. Further in FIR Nos.64/2014, 7/2014, 76/2014, 78/2014, 83/2014 and 121/2014 the detenue had been admitted to bail but these facts have not been made mention of in the grounds of detention though reference to said FIRs 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 Hon9ble 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 judgement 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. Further, arrest of the detenue in connection with various criminal cases, at the time of passing of the order of detention, has not been disputed.

7) The object of passing the order