1. The petitioner Imtiyaz Ahmad Sofi, through his father, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Article 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, wherein he has sought indulgence of this Court for quashment of the detention order No. DMS/PSA/85 dated: 11-03-2002. 2. It is inter-alia maintained in this Habeas Corpus petition that the detenue came to be arrested by the Special Operation Group Srinagar, at Rajbagh Crossing on 31-01-2002 and was shifted to Police Station Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar, where a false and fabricated case under FIR No. 11/2002 for offences punishable U/s 7/25 Arms Act and 21 POTA was registered by the said Police Station; that thereafter the detenue came to be detained under Public Safety Act on 11-03-20002 on vague and indefinite grounds, as a result of which he could not make an effective representation against the detention; that the detenue was never served with the order of detention or the material referred to in the grounds of detention: that the impugned detention order is illegal, vague and unconstitutional. 3. On admission of this writ petition, the State was put to notice. Respondent No. 2 has filed his counter .affidavit wherein it is admitted that the detenue was arrested on 31-01-2002 and case under FIR No. 11/2002 for offences punishable-U/s 7/25 Arms Act and 21 POTA was registered in Police Station Shaheed Gunj and it is further inter-alia stated that the detention order came to be issued on 11-03-2002 and the same came to be approved by the Government on 14-03-2002 and the detenue was taken into preventive custody on 02-04-2002. 4. Heard Mr. N.A. Ronga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Gadda, the Government Advocate. 5. The petitioner has assailed the order of detention impugned in this petition on various grounds, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress on the grounds that the detenue at the time of issuance of detention order was already in the custody of police and no compelling reasons for detaining him in the preventive custody has been disclosed in the detention order, and, that he has not been also furnished with the material on which the grounds of detention was based. It is admitted by the respondent No. 2 in his counter affidavit that the detenue was arrested on 31-01 -2002 in case FIR No. 11/2002 for offences punishable U/s 7/25 Arms Act and 21 of the POTA of P/S Shaheed Gunj. It is also submitted that the impugned order of detention recorded on 11-03-2002 came to be executed on 02-04-2002. i.e. well after a period of 21 days. The grounds of detention formulated by respondent No. 2 reveal that while formulating the grounds of detention, the respondent No. 2 was in know of the fact that the detenue was arrested on 31-01-2002, in connection of a case under FIR No. 11/ 2002 for offences punishable U/s 7/25 Arms Act and 21 POTA of Police Station Shaheed Gunj, but despite being aware of this fact he has failed to record satisfaction on his part to the effect that there were compelling reasons that there is every likelihood of the detenue being released on bail and that he has taken note of his previous antecedents and is satisfied that if released on bail he may resume his previous activities which shall be prejudicial and shall also cause threat to the security of the State. Failing to record his satisfaction to the afore effect makes the detention order bad in law. In this behalf, reference is made to a case titled as Surya Prakash Sharma Vs. State of U.P. 1995 AIR SCW 1841, wherein their lordships of the Apex Court have observed as under:- "The question as to whether and in what circumstances an order for preventive detention can be passed against a person who is already in custody has been engaging the attention of this Court since it first came up for consideration before a constitution bench in Rameshwar Shah Vs. District Magistrate Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921. To eschew prolixity we refrain from dealing all those cases except Unit of Dharmendra Suganchand chelawat Vs. District Magistrate Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921. To eschew prolixity we refrain from dealing all those cases except Unit of Dharmendra Suganchand chelawat Vs. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1196) wherein a three Judge Bench,, after considering all the earlier relevant decisions, including Rameshwar Shah (supra) answered the question in the following words: The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenue is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling, reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenue is already in detention. The expression ˜compelling reasons™ in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implied that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenue is likely to be released from custody in the near future; and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenue, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.� When the above principles are applied to the facts of the instant case, there is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Though the grounds of detention indicate the detaining authority™s awareness of the fact that the detenue was in Judicial custody at the time of making the order of detention, the detaining authority has not brought on record any cogent material nor furnished any cogent ground in support of the averment made in grounds of detention that if the aforementioned Surya Prakash Sharma is released on bail, he may again indulge in serious offences causing threat to public order, solely on the basis of a solitary murder cannot be said to be proper and justified." 6. The Apex Court in another case titled as Amritlal and others Vs. Union Govt. through Secy. The Apex Court in another case titled as Amritlal and others Vs. Union Govt. through Secy. Ministry of Finance and others, (2001) SCC 341, has inpara 6 and 7 observed as under: - "The requirement as noticed above in Binod Singh case that there is "likelihood of the petitioners being released on bail" however is not available in the reasoning as provided by the officer concerned. The reasoning available is the "likelihood of his moving an application for bail" which is different from "likelihood to be released on bail". This reasoning, in our view, is not sufficient compliance with the requirements as laid down. The emphasis however, in Binod Singh case that before passing the detention order the authority concerned must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be released on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order." Applying the afore test to this case, there is nothing on record to show that the detenue or somebody on his behalf has approached the court of competent jurisdiction for releasing him on bail in FIR No. 11/2002 for offences punishable U/s 7/25 Arms Act and 21 POTA registered at Police Station Shaheed Gunj. This being so, in view of the above quoted authorities, subjective satisfaction recorded by respondent No. 2 gets vitiated. Viewed thus, the order of detention impugned is liable to be quashed, and is accordingly, quashed. It is ordered that the deteuue namely Imtiyaz Ahmad Sofi S/O Mohammad Amin Sofi R/O Chodribagh, Rainawari, Srinagar, be set at liberty forthwith provided he is not involved or required in any other case. Record be returned to the learned Govt. Advocate. Disposed of, accordingly.