JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J.—This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 4.6.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Agra against him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act and for his release from detention. 2. It has been alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a peace loving and law abiding citizen and he has not been convicted in any case so far. On 23.3.2008 at about 8.55 p.m. a F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Sundar Singh Chauhan against him and other co-accused named Babloo, Satish Chaudhary, Rajendra Yadav and Hariya Chaudhary under Sections 147, 148,149, 302, I.P.C. at police station Chhatta District Agra and on the basis of that report case crime No. 30/08 was registered against him. On the basis of this report, the District Magistrate, Agra, the respondent No. 2, passed an order against him for his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act on 4.6.2008. The petitioner has challenged the validity of this order on several grounds in the present Habeas Corpus petition. 3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit also in reply to those counter affidavits. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner first of all submitted before us that the District Magistrate, Agra, respondent No. 2 did not apply his mind before passing the impugned order and he simply signed the detention order in a mechanical manner. He further submitted that a perusal of the grounds of detention contained in the order dated 4.6.2008 (Annexure-2) shows that these grounds are in verbatim reproduction of the report of the Inspector of Police Station Chhatta dated 7.5.2008 (Annexure-6). 6. In support of this contention he cited before us a Division Bench Ruling of this Court in Tunnu v. Superintendent, District Jail, Ballia and others, 2000 (1) A.Cr.R. 611. In this case also in the grounds of detention, there was almost verbatim reproduction of the report submitted by sponsoring authority with this charge only that the name of the petitioner in the report was substituted by word ‘Aap’ in the grounds of the detention order. In this case also in the grounds of detention, there was almost verbatim reproduction of the report submitted by sponsoring authority with this charge only that the name of the petitioner in the report was substituted by word ‘Aap’ in the grounds of the detention order. The Court, relying upon a ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 1 SCC 561 , held that apparently the detention order had been passed in mechanical manner, casually and without application of mind and so it stood vitiated. He also cited before us another ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Vashdev Adnani v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2006)1 SCC (Cri) 61. This was a case in which the detention order was passed under Section 3(1)(i) & (iii), COFEPOSA and the detention order was verbatim reproduction of the proposal of the sponsoring authority except use of the word ‘Aap’ in the order for the word ‘he’ in the proposal. It was held that such a detention order suffers from non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority at the time of actual preparation of the detention order and grounds thereof, and so it was not sustainable. 7. We have gone through the proposal for detention of the petitioner submitted by the Inspector of P.S. Chhatta (Annexure-6) and the grounds for detention furnished to the petitioner on 4.6.2008 alongwith the detention order which is Annexure-2. A comparison of both these documents reveals that the contents of Annexure-6 have been almost virtually reproduced from para 3 of Annexure-2 at page 21 to 2nd para of page 32 with this change only that the word ‘Aap’ has been used in the grounds (Annexure 2) in place of reference to the petitioner either by name or by pronoun in the report (Annexure 4). It may be added in this regard that at page 23 of grounds of detention the sentence "Upnirikshak Sri Laxman Singh Bhi Ghatna Asthal Par Maujood Hain” has been reproduced which was finding place in the report of the Inspector of P.S. Chhatta dated 30.5.2008. It appears that Up Nirikshak Sri Laxman Singh had visited the spot on the date of the incident which was 23.3.2008. It appears that Up Nirikshak Sri Laxman Singh had visited the spot on the date of the incident which was 23.3.2008. He could not remain present on the spot continuously upto 30.5.2008 but since this sentence finds place in the report of the Inspector (Annexure-6) at page 42, the same sentence has been copied in the order of the District Magistrate dated 4.6.2008 also. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid facts go to show that there was no application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate at the time of passing the order of detention and he simply signed the order casually in a mechanical manner even without reading it thoroughly without understanding and without considering on merits its contents and so the order stands vitiated. We agree with this contention in view of the discussions attempted above. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged this order on several other grounds also but since the detention order has been found by us to be invalid on the above ground of verbatim reproduction of the report of the Inspector in the grounds of detention and non-application of mind by the detaining authority, in view of the law laid down in the rulings, referred to above, we need not consider those other points, and we are allowing this petition on this ground only. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 4.6.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Agra passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act is hereby quashed. Let the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other case. ————