1. Father of Mohd Akhter Naik (to be referred as `detenue’) through the instant petition seeks quashment of the detention order No. DMR/PSA/07/03/265-71 dated 09.07.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Ramban (respondent No.2) whereby detaining his son under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act 1978 (for short `the Act’). 2. Admitted position is that when the detenue was detained under the Act on 09.07.2007, he was already in judicial confinement in case F.I.R. No. 44/2007 registered at Police Station Banihal under Sections 120-B/ 121-A RPC read with Sections 13 & 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, in which he was arrested on 12.04.2007. Other admitted position is that his co-accused namely Farooq Ahmed Wani, who was also booked with him in the said F.I.R. and was subsequently detained under the Act on 03.08.2007, had challenged his detention order which stands quashed vide judgment dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure-C). 3. Pursuant to notice, respondents had put in appearance but till date no reply has been filed despite many opportunities including the last one being granted. The right is, thus, closed, as such like petitions should be decided at the earliest. However, Mr. Gupta has shown me the dossier of the detenue during the course of arguments. 4. Heard both the sides and record also perused. 5. Mr. Bali assails the impugned order of detention primarily on the following grounds:- (i) There were no compelling circumstances with the District Magistrate, Ramban, for passing the detention order; and (ii) The detention order otherwise lacks application of mind. Dwelling upon his arguments, Mr. Bali submits that perusal of grounds of detention reflects the activities of the detenue relating to case F.I.R. No. 44/2007 registered at Police Station Banihal only and nothing beyond that. In the said case, he was formally arrested on 12.04.2007 and sent to judicial custody. There was no extra material supplied to respondent No.2 to come to the conclusion that after he being detained in a substantive offence, was still indulging in the nefarious activities prejudicial to the security of the State. According to the learned counsel, the detenue was in custody as an undertrial prisoner and had no even applied for bail. Therefore, there could not be any apprehension in the mind of respondent No.2 that in the event of he being released on bail, he would indulge in such like activities. According to the learned counsel, the detenue was in custody as an undertrial prisoner and had no even applied for bail. Therefore, there could not be any apprehension in the mind of respondent No.2 that in the event of he being released on bail, he would indulge in such like activities. Therefore, there were no compelling circumstances against the detenue for passing the impugned order of detention. Mr. Bali then submits that not only there is aforesaid flaw in the order of detention, it lacks complete application of mind by the District Magistrate, Ramban, as he has just dittoed the dossier prepared by the police without even ascertaining the true facts. He submits that the detenue is in custody since 09.07.2007, the date of execution of the detention order, and by now he has undergone more than 19 months out of the total detaining period of 24 months. This all has curtailed his constitutional liberty. Mr. Bali lastly submits that factum of quashment of the separate detention order of his co-accused booked in the same case (F.I.R. No.44/2007) may also be considered in favour of the detenue. In support of his contentions, Mr. Bali has relied upon the following judgments:- 1. `Amritlal and others v. Union Govt. through Secy., Ministry of Finance and others’ (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 341; 2. `Mohammad Yousaf Dar v. State and others’ (2003) 1 S.L.J. 144 (J&K High Court); and 3. `Mohammad Maqbool Beigh v. State of J&K and others’ (2007) 1 S.L.J. 89 (J&K High Court). 6. Mr. Gupta repudiates the contentions raised by Mr. Bali on the ground that quashment of the detention order of co-accused of the detenue would have no bearing upon the decision of this petition as facts of that case are entirely different. He then submits that may be no explanation is given by the detaining authority for passing the impugned order after three months of the arrest of the detenue in F.I.R. No. 44/2007, but that itself would not make any difference for the reason that the grounds of detention reflect the activities of the detenue which can comfortably be said to be prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, apparently there is no fault with the impugned order of detention. He then submits that ordinarily this Court should not sit in appeal over the detention order so as to re-appreciate the matter which was made the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Therefore, the instant petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. After hearing respective contentions of the either side and going through the record which includes the dossier of the detenue, I am of the considered view that the detention order deserves to be quashed as it lacks complete application of mind by the detaining authority. 8. Conceded position before me is that when the order of detention was passed on 09.07.2007, the detenue was already in custody in F.I.R. No. 44/2007 since 12.04.2007. F.I.R. No. 44/2007 relates to substantive offences. It is also conceded that he had not even applied for bail till then. The order of detention is passed after few days less than three months of earlier arrest. Perusal of grounds of detention, indicates that the basis for passing the detention order is the involvement of the detenue for the substantive offences only. Therefore, the detaining authority was under an obligation to explain and disclose in the order of detention the reason of delay of about three months in passing the order. In my view, there is no such explanation put forth in this regard. It, on the face of it, is a serious flaw, which speaks volume of non-application of mind by the detaining authority and cannot be just ignored. The matter does not rest here. Admittedly, the detenue had not filed any application for his release from the jail, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the detaining authority was satisfied on the basis of the material available that there was likelihood of his being released on bail. There is, otherwise, no reference with regard to bail. In the absence of such satisfaction, detention order could not be passed. In Amritlal’s case, relied upon by Mr. Bali, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying upon another judgment rendered in `Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (1986) 4 SCC 416 , has quashed the detention order on the ground that if a person is in custody and there is no eminent possibility of his release therefrom, the power of detention should not ordinarily be exercised. Bali, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying upon another judgment rendered in `Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (1986) 4 SCC 416 , has quashed the detention order on the ground that if a person is in custody and there is no eminent possibility of his release therefrom, the power of detention should not ordinarily be exercised. In the case on hand, as observed earlier (may be for the sake of repetition), admittedly there is no reference in the grounds of detention about the detenue being released from jail in near future. This vital weakness is staring at the detention order. 9. In my view, the grounds of detention are verbatim copy of the dossier supplied to the District Magistrate, Ramban, and he has not considered any other material for his subjective satisfaction before passing the impugned order. It is complete non-application of mind on the part of District Magistrate, Ramban. 10. No doubt, while exercising powers of judicial review, this Court should not ordinarily sit in appeal over the detention order so as to re-appreciate the material, which is made the basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. But at the same time the Court cannot shut its eyes if it finds that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Court cannot be a silent spectator to the infringement of the constitutional rights. Nobody can be allowed to treat them in a casual manner. Subjective satisfaction does not mean that the District Magistrate is supposed to ditto the dossier taking it as gospel truth. If the detention order, on the face of it, is bad and reflects non-application of mind, it would certainly fall within the scope of judicial review and deserves to be quashed. The case on hand is of that nature. 11. I do not want to enter into a detailed discussion on any other aspect of the present case as in my considered view the detention order impugned herein is liable to be quashed simply on non-application of mind by the District Magistrate (respondent No.2). 12. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the detention order No. DMR/PSA/07/03/265-71 dated 09.07.2007 impugned herein, is, hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release the person of Mohd Akhter Naik S/o Sh. Abdul Rahim Naik R/o Village Shagan, Tehsil & District Ramban, forthwith if not required in any other case. 12. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the detention order No. DMR/PSA/07/03/265-71 dated 09.07.2007 impugned herein, is, hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release the person of Mohd Akhter Naik S/o Sh. Abdul Rahim Naik R/o Village Shagan, Tehsil & District Ramban, forthwith if not required in any other case. The detention record (Dossier of the detenue) has been returned to Mr. Gupta.