1. Through the instant petition one Masarat Alam Bhat S/o Abdul Majid Bhat R/o Zaindar Mohalla, Srinagar (hereinafter to be referred to as 'detenu') seeks quashment of the detention order bearing No. DMS/PSA/24/2012 dated 03.08.2012 passed under Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act of 1978 (for short 'PSA') by District Magistrate, Srinagar- respondent No. 2, inter alia, on the grounds carved out in the petition as well as additional grounds taken by Mr. Qayoom during the course of arguments. 2. The grounds of detention, which are made the basis of slapping the impugned detention order are reproduced as under: - "You are a self styled chairman of a secessionist outfit namely Muslim League which advocates the secession of State of J&K from the Union of India and its annexation with Pakistan. For achieving this objective, the outfit has been resorting to various types of anti-national activities ranging from use of arms to stone pelting protests. However, the ultimate impact of the activities of the carders of the outfit is highly prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State. When militancy was started in the valley, you volunteered to join Hizbullah, a terrorist organisation operating in early nineties. You ex-filtrated to POK for arms training and after return became one of the prominent terrorist commanders of the time. You were arrested on 02/10/1990 and detained under PSA, since then you have been in and out of the jail, but you have not changed your anti-India stance. However, you have changed your method and instead of taking to arms you have chosen to resort to different means i.e. forming/founding a pseudo political outfit, assembling the released terrorists, maintaining contacts with the underground terrorists, facilitating terrorist activities and organizing violent protests. It is worthwhile to mention here that you were a militant when militancy were thought to be a means to effect the secession of the State from the Union of India. You donned the guise of a pseudo political activist when political means were thought to be a potent weapon and virtually became a stone pelter, when situation demanded. All along your activities have been highly objectionable and anti-national in character. With the realignment of secessionist cadres, you sided with the hard core faction because of your mental compatibility with this faction. Over a period of time, you have grown into an incorrigible with this faction. All along your activities have been highly objectionable and anti-national in character. With the realignment of secessionist cadres, you sided with the hard core faction because of your mental compatibility with this faction. Over a period of time, you have grown into an incorrigible with this faction. Over a period of time, you have grown into an incorrigible anti-social and anti-national element whose activities are solely aimed at seceding the State of J&K from the Union of India. For indulging in various types of illegal activities, you have been proceeded against under normal criminal law on several occasions and in some case, you are facing trial. The details the cases registered against you are mentioned below:- Case FIR No. 02/2001 u/s 10 CLA Act 13 ULA (P) Act 121,122 RFC of P/S Karan Nagar. Case FIR No. 34/2006 u/s 13 ULA (P) Act and 153-A RPC of P/S Nigeen. Case FIR No. 80/2006 u/s 147,241,188 RPC of P/S Kothibagh. Case FIR No. 86/2006 u/s 147,241 RPC of P/S Kothibagh. Case FIR No. 12/2006 u/s 307,336,148,188,332,353,427 RPC of P/S Krai Khud. Case FIR No. 70/2007 u/s 13,18 ULA Act P/S Safakadal. Case FIR No. 35/2008 u/s 148, 149, 307, 341, 336, 332, 427 RPC of P/S Kralkhud. Case FIR No. 42/2008 u/s 148,149,336,436,447,427 RPC P/S Rainawari. Case FIR No. 07/2010 u/s 121 RPC 13 ULA Act P/S Maisuma. Case FIR No. 74/2010 u/s 153-B RPC 13 ULA (P) Act of P/S Sheedgunj. Case FIR No. 128/2010 u/s 120-B, 121-A, 124-A, 505,506 RPC of P/s Sadder. Case FIR No. 52/2010 u/s 124-A, 506 RPC of P/S Kothibagh. Case FIR No. 59/2010 u/s 13,18 ULA 121 RPC (P) Act of P/S Harwan. Case FIR No. 50/2010 u/s 307, 148, 149, 336, 427, 120-B RPC of P/S Nowhatta. Case FIR No. 219/2010 u/s 147,148,149,188, 336, 341, 353, 307, 395,435, 447,120-B RPC of P/S Parimpora. Case FIR No. 60/2010 u/s 148,336,332,436,427,153,163-A RPC 13 ULA (P) Act of P/S Nigeen." Since normal law has not been proved sufficient to stop you from indulging in secessionist activities, you have been detained under preventive laws on several occasions and last time you were detained under PSA vide this office Order No. DMS/PSA/55/2011 dated 30/12/2011. Case FIR No. 60/2010 u/s 148,336,332,436,427,153,163-A RPC 13 ULA (P) Act of P/S Nigeen." Since normal law has not been proved sufficient to stop you from indulging in secessionist activities, you have been detained under preventive laws on several occasions and last time you were detained under PSA vide this office Order No. DMS/PSA/55/2011 dated 30/12/2011. It is pertinent to mention that secessionism is being propagated and carried out in a highly organised manner and the funding of such activities is doubtful, questionable and at times proved to be managed through Hawala channels. You are being one of the prominent exponents of the secessionist ideology and have also the backing of these elements who provide you the legal support to thwart the legal process. Though, you have no known source of income but have always been represented by top advocates in the Courts, who assail every order of detention passed against you. In the instant case, also the detention order mentioned above was also challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K Srinagar, which has been pleased to quash the said detention order. In compliance to the directions of the Hon'ble Court you were discharged from PSA but have been arrested by police station Counter Intelligence Jammu (CIJ) on 31/07/2012 as you were required in connection with the investigation of case FIR No. 02/2012 of P/S CIJ. You are presently lodged in Police Station CIJ. Though you are presently under custody but there is likelihood of your being admitted to bail and if you are released on bail, there is a well founded apprehension that you will again indulge in anti-national and secessionist activities. This apprehension is based on the facts related to you because you were last time released in the year 2009 and you were one of the major factors responsible for the violent agitation in the year 2010, which resulted in large-scale loss of life and property besides stalling every civic activity. Investigation conducted in a number of cases revealed you involvement in motivating, instigating and leading such protests. It may also be taken note of that you were arrested on 04/02/2010 and the agitation started to die down. During the period, you were at large i.e. from 8th June-2010 to 18/10/2010 (234) cases were registered and after your arrest (26) cases were registered. It may also be taken note of that you were arrested on 04/02/2010 and the agitation started to die down. During the period, you were at large i.e. from 8th June-2010 to 18/10/2010 (234) cases were registered and after your arrest (26) cases were registered. Moreover the reports received from other agencies reveal that your conduct and behaviour inside Kathua Jail has remained suspicious and as per information, you used to meet co-inmates at different barracks in jail and motivate them for continuing the so called Jehad. This shows that you have been one of the reasons for violence and if you are allowed to remain at large at this point of time, the impact of your being at large will be highly prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State. Though, peace has been restored but it is still fragile and the people like you need to be stopped from disturbing the hard-earned peace. The freedom of the society has to take precedence over the liberty of the individual. Taking a whole some and dispassionate view of the circumstances it is felt that your release at this stage will adversely affect the peaceful atmosphere and it is believed that you will indulge in highly provocative and antinational activities. In order to stop you from indulging in such activities, your detention under the provisions of Public Safety Act at this stage has become imperative. Therefore, it is clear that you activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the state and warrant immediate preventive measures to be taken against you to prevent the society from violence, strikes, economic adversity and social indiscipline. On the basis of the aforementioned activities, I have reached to the conclusion that it would be expedient to detain you under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, for which orders are being issued separately." 3. The respondents-State has shown opposition to the petition by filing counter affidavit stating therein that the detention order stands approved by the competent authority in terms of the Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1251/2012 dated 12.08.2012 and thereafter it was sent for the opinion of the State Advisory Board in compliance to the Rules. The respondents-State has shown opposition to the petition by filing counter affidavit stating therein that the detention order stands approved by the competent authority in terms of the Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1251/2012 dated 12.08.2012 and thereafter it was sent for the opinion of the State Advisory Board in compliance to the Rules. The State Advisory Board after examining the material, approved the detention of the detenu and after re-examining the matter in its entirety and also while considering the opinion of the State Advisory Board, the Government vide, Order No. Home/PB-V/1485/2012 dated 19.09.2012 has confirmed the detention of the detenu and ordered that he will be detained for a period of six months. 4. With regard to certain flaws pointed out in the petition including non-supply of the material thereby depriving the detenu of his valuable right to make representation, the stand of the State in its reply is as under:- "it is submitted that the material in the form of grounds of detention has been given to the detenu, which contain his activities and also has got a passing reference of the FIRs. The detenu is already aware of the cases registered against him in different police station. He is actually a militant of Hizullah outfit and then formed it in secessionist outfit namely Muslim League, which advocates the secession of State of J&K from the Union of India and its annexation with Pakistan and for achieving this objective, the detenu as well as the outfit has been resorting to various types of anti national and subversive activities ranging from use of arms and ammunition as well as stone pelting protests and the ultimate impact of the activities is highly prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State." 5. Heard Mr. Qayoom, learned counsel for the detenu and Mr. Shah, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State. 6. Mr. Heard Mr. Qayoom, learned counsel for the detenu and Mr. Shah, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State. 6. Mr. Qayoom submits that the case on hand has its peculiar facts inasmuch as the detenu was first arrested way back in year 1990 on 02.10.1990 and detained under PSA, and after keeping him in detention for more than a year, he was released in November, 1991; thereafter re-arrested in 1993 and detained under PSA, which was extended from time to time and finally he was released in February, 1997; thereafter once again arrested in 1997 and after he served his period of detention, released from preventive detention in May, 2000; again in 2001, he was booked under PSA and after he remained in detention for more than two years, released in the month of August, 2003 but again arrested in October, 2003 under PSA, for which, he remained in custody for two years and released in the month of July, 2005. He was again arrested in April, 2007, which order was questioned by filing a writ bearing HCP No. 108/2007 in this Court, which came to be allowed on 01.10.2007, resultantly, released from custody. He was again arrested in April, 2007, which order was questioned by filing a writ bearing HCP No. 108/2007 in this Court, which came to be allowed on 01.10.2007, resultantly, released from custody. It is thereafter, he was booked in several FIRs and once again detained under PSA on 16.01.2008 on the same grounds which formed the basis of order of detention dated 28.04.2007, which came to be questioned through the medium of HCP No. 30/2008, which was allowed by this Court on 23.05.2008, consequently, he was released on 27.05.2008, but again arrested on 05.09.2008 under PSA on the same grounds which were formed the basis of the earlier two orders of detention, which order once again was questioned through HCP No. 223/2008, which was allowed by this Court on 27.12.2008 and the detenu was directed to be released from the preventive custody; however, he was not released on the ground that he was involved in FIR No. 42/2008 of Police Station Rainawari, Srinagar, in which he ultimately got bail on 22.01.2009, but when the order was served upon the respondents, they once again detained him under PSA in pursuance of the detention order dated 21.01.2009, which was again challenged through the medium of HCP No. 302/2009, which was allowed by this Court on 25.05.2009, in which again a direction given to the respondents to release the detenu from custody forthwith, but not released and instead was booked once again in terms of the detention order dated 09.06.2009, aggrieved thereof, he knocked at the door of this Court vide HCP No. 108/2009, which was allowed vide order dated 18.08.2009, despite that the respondents did not release the detenu and booked him in several cases, in which he ultimately got bail, but instead of releasing him from custody, he was once again booked under the PSA in terms of order dated 02.02.2010, which was again challenged by him by filing Habeas Corpus Petition, which came to be allowed in June, 2010 and a direction was issued to release him from jail, but he was once again arrested on 18.10.2010 and booked him in many cases of different Police Stations of Srinagar, and thereafter detained him under PSA in terms of order dated 11.12.2010, which order was challenged by him through the medium of HCP No. 49/2011, which petition came to be allowed on 10.06.2011, resultantly he was discharged from PSA on 30.07.2011, but arrested by Police Station CI Jammu on the same day i.e. 30.07.2011 and booked him in F.I.R. No. 01/2011 of Police Station CI Jammu and while he was in custody, again detained by respondent No. 2 in terms of the detention order dated 04.08.2011, which order was challenged by him through HCP No. 304/2011, which was allowed vide order dated 23.12.2011. Instead of releasing the detenu, he was once again detained under PSA vide order dated 30.12.2011, aggrieved thereof, he filed HCP No. 05/2012 before this Court, which stands allowed on 02.06.2012. 7. Mr. Qayoom submits that on the service of the order of this Court passed in the aforesaid HCP No. 05/2012, on respondents, the detenu was discharged from PSA on 31.07.2012, but re-arrested by Counter Intelligence, Jammu (CIJ) on the ground that he was required in connection with F.I.R. No. 02/2012 of CI Jammu and after keeping him in CIJ for a couple of days, he is once again detained vide impugned detention order. 8. Mr. Qayoom refers to the copies of certain detention orders, grounds of detention which were made the basis of passing the detention orders against the detenu from October, 2010 and also the copies of the judgments passed by this Court in some of the HCPs filed by the detenu after October, 2010. But mainly, he banks upon the order dated 02.06.2012 passed in HCP No. 05/2012, wherein after relying upon several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including two latest judgments handed down in case 'Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu' AIR (2011) 4 SCC 260 and 'Yumman Ongbi Lembi Lcima v. State of Manipur and others' (2012) 2 SCC 176 , the detention order No. DMS/PSA1155/dated 30.12.2011 slapped upon the detenu has been quashed by this Court. 9. Mr. Qayoom submits that in the flashback of the aforesaid facts, it appears that the State agency is bent upon keeping the detenu in custody for one reason or the other, and the basis now made is his arrest in F.I.R. No. 02/2012 of Police Station CIJ. 10. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the detenu had not filed any bail application in the Court in the aforesaid FIR and, therefore, there was no possibility of his release in near future. According to learned counsel, the apprehension as spelt out in the grounds of detention is unfounded. For this reason alone, detention order slapped upon the detenu is unsustainable. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the detenu had not filed any bail application in the Court in the aforesaid FIR and, therefore, there was no possibility of his release in near future. According to learned counsel, the apprehension as spelt out in the grounds of detention is unfounded. For this reason alone, detention order slapped upon the detenu is unsustainable. He submits that even otherwise there is no cogent material with the detaining authority for drawing satisfaction for the purpose of passing the detention order for the reason that what ever is reflected in the present grounds of detention was also the basis in the earlier grounds of detention except that the involvement of the detenu is shown in another FIR (FIR No. 02/2012) and that all the previous material was considered by this Court in HCP No. 05/2012 which came to be allowed. Therefore, according to Mr. Qayoom, the grounds reflected in the present grounds of detention for keeping the detenu in preventive custody are irrelevant and non-existent factors. 11. Mr. Qayoom then points out another flaw inasmuch as the material, which is made the basis of passing the detention order as reflected in the grounds of detention, was not made available to the detenu depriving him of his statutory right to make effective representation before the concerned authority, which in turn, has violated his constitutional right enshrined under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India and under Section 13 of the Act of 1978. 12. Primarily, on these grounds, Mr. Qayoom seeks quashment of the impugned detention order, which is vehemently opposed by Mr. Shah submitting that if one looks at the flashback of the nefarious activities in which the detenu has involved himself, all those are prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought herein. 13. Mr. Shah then submits that in fact, the detenu is a habitual offender and, therefore, the detaining authority after looking at his activities, arrived at its subjective satisfaction for passing the impugned order of detention. He goes on to submit that the State has arrived at a definite conclusion that provisions of ordinary criminal law are not sufficient in the ordinary course to deal firmly with the detenu and, therefore, after considering all the aspects, it became imperative to pass the detention order. 14. Mr. He goes on to submit that the State has arrived at a definite conclusion that provisions of ordinary criminal law are not sufficient in the ordinary course to deal firmly with the detenu and, therefore, after considering all the aspects, it became imperative to pass the detention order. 14. Mr. Shah then submits that may be the detenu has not filed any application seeking bail in case FIR No. 02/2012 registered at CI Jammu, that aspect has no bearing upon the decision of the present case at least, keeping in view the deep involvement of the detenu in an activity which is highly prejudicial to the security of the State as his past record is an indicative of the fact that his detention is in the interest of the society at large and that the freedom of society has to take precedence over the member of an individual. Mr. Shah, thus, prays for dismissal of the instant petition out rightly. 15. I do not feel the necessity of entering into the detailed discussion vis-a-vis flashback of events attributed to the detenu for the reason that while quashing Detention Order No. DMS/PSA 1155/dated 30.12.2011, one of the Coordinate Benches of this Court (Brother Hasnain Massodi-J) has given flashback of some of Habeas Corpus Petitions disposed of by this Court whereby the detention order(s) slapped upon the detenu came to be quashed. 16. The grounds of detention, which were made the basis of passing the aforesaid detention order (No.DMS/PSA 1155/dated 30.12.2011), indicate that after the earlier detention order was set aside in HCP No. 304/2011, the detenu was arrested in case FIR No. 74/2010 under Section 13 ULA (P) Act, 153-b RPC of Police Station Shaheed Gunj on 30.12.2011. The view taken by the Coordinate Bench is that the detaining authority, however, instead of allowing the custody of the detenu in a substantive offence in the aforesaid FIR No. 74/2010 and opposing the bail to the detenu, again made use of extraordinary power under PSA and slapped the detention order on him. The view taken by the Coordinate Bench is that the detaining authority, however, instead of allowing the custody of the detenu in a substantive offence in the aforesaid FIR No. 74/2010 and opposing the bail to the detenu, again made use of extraordinary power under PSA and slapped the detention order on him. The reasons justifying use of the power to pass the preventive detention order as spelt out in the grounds of detention formulated on 30.12.2011 were as under:- " though, you are presently under custody but there is likelihood and you are being admitted to bail and in that eventuality there is well founded apprehension that you will again indulge in similar activities as mentioned above." 17. It is relevant to refer to paras 9 & 10 of the judgment/order passed in the aforesaid HCP No. 05/2012; "9. The question arises, whether the respondents instead of opposing the detenue's bail in case FIR No. 74 of 2010 Police Station Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar in connection with which he was arrested after the earlier detention order was quashed, during trial and taking steps to bring home guilt to the detenue, so that the detenue was convicted of the alleged offences, and awarded punishment laid down under law, have power to perpetuate his detention by making use of extra ordinary power under Section 8 Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. 10. It is pertinent to point out that there was no material before the Detaining Authority to conclude that the detenue had approached the Court with an application for grant of bail in case FIR No. 74/2010 Police Station Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar, in his favour and his application was likely to be allowed. The grounds of detention obviously do not make mention of such an application having been made, by or on behalf of detenue. There was therefore admittedly no material before the Detaining Authority to rush to conclusion that the detenue would be released on bail when the detenue had not moved the Court for grant of bail. This Court in Syed Asiya Andrabi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others HCP No. 257/2011 decided on 25th August, 2011 reported at 2011 (3) JKJ HC 204 confronted with a similar question has held:- "24. This Court in Syed Asiya Andrabi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others HCP No. 257/2011 decided on 25th August, 2011 reported at 2011 (3) JKJ HC 204 confronted with a similar question has held:- "24. wherever a person is to face or is facing criminal trial, the right course for the authorities is to make use of ordinary penal law which gives a right to authorities/respondents to resist and oppose grant of bail to the accused." Seeking support from law laid down by Supreme Court in Rekha's case, this Court observe:- The Supreme Court in Rekha's case (supra) while holding that observations made in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1975) 3 SCC 198 , case cannot be regarded as unqualified statement that in every case that even if a person is liable to be tried in a criminal court for commission of a criminal offence, or is actually being so tried, that does not debar the authorities from passing a detention order under a preventive detention law, The Court reproduced the following observation made by the Supreme Court in Rekha's case:- "Article 22(3) is only an exception to Article 21 and it is not itself a fundamental right. It is Article 21 which is central to the while chapter on fundamental rights in our constitution. The right to liberty means that before sending a person to prison a trial must ordinarily be held given him opportunity of placing his defence through his lawyer. It follows that if a person is liable to be tried, or is actually being tried, for a criminal offence, the ordinary criminal law (Indian Penal Code or other penal statutes) will not be able to deal with the situation, then, and only then, can the preventive detention law be taken recourse to" 18. In Rekha's case (supra), in para 27, it has been observed as under:- "27. In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts normally grant bail on this ground. However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise the bald statement of the authority cannot be believed". 19. This law has been reiterated in another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court handed down in case Yumman Ongbi's case (supra) wherein the detenu was put under preventive detention for the only reason that he was likely to be released on bail in near future by normal criminal courts as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. The Supreme Court disapproving the detention order observed:- "13. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of respective parties, were are inclined to hold that the extra-ordinary powers of detaining an individual in contravention of the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution was not warranted in the instant case, where the grounds of detention do not disclose any material which was before the detaining authority, other 16 than the fact that there was every likelihood of Yumman Somendro being released on bail in connection with the cases in respect of which he had been arrested, to support the order of detention. Article 21 of the Constitution enjoins that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except, accordingly to procedure established by law. In the instant case, although the power is vested with the concerned authorities, unless the same are invoked and implemented in a justifiable manner, such action of the detaining authority cannot be sustained as, such a detention order is an exception to the provisions of Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution." 20. In the instant case, although the power is vested with the concerned authorities, unless the same are invoked and implemented in a justifiable manner, such action of the detaining authority cannot be sustained as, such a detention order is an exception to the provisions of Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution." 20. Another important fact for consideration is that while quashing the aforesaid detention order No. DMS/PSA 1155/dated 30.12.2011, the Coordinate Bench noticed that the reasons set out in the grounds of detention in support of the detention order passed earlier to the detention order No. DMS/PSA 1155/dated 30.12.2011, there were only minor additions or alterations here and there with the primary/main grounds of detention remaining unaltered, and while relying upon the settled law that the grounds of detention in support of a detention order quashed by the Court cannot be used to pass a fresh detention order. 21. Dealing with the situation on facts, this Court in 'Qazi Yasir Ahmad v. State' HCP No. 218/2011 decided on 06.07.2011, held:- "It is well settled law that when a detention order is quashed by the Court, the grounds of the order so quashed should not be taken into consideration, either as whole or in part, even along with fresh grounds of detention for drawing subjective satisfaction to pass fresh detention order. It is to be appreciated that once the Court sets aside the detention order, it nullifies the entire order. The Detaining Authority therefore cannot consider the ground that were relied upon to pass the earlier detention order or activities that were detailed in such grounds. The position may be different where the earlier detention order is revoked due to technical reasons. In such a situation the grounds of detention may be used to make fresh detention order after removal of technical impediment or loopholes. However, no such recourse is available where the earlier detention order is struck down by the Court as it sets at naught not only detention order but the grounds on which the detention order is based." 22. In the backdrop of what is stated hereinabove, the present grounds of detention which are made the basis of passing the impugned detention order, require a re-look along with earlier grounds of detention, which were made basis of passing of the aforesaid detention order No. DMS/PSA 1155/dated 30.12.2011, which ultimately came to be quashed by this Court. In the backdrop of what is stated hereinabove, the present grounds of detention which are made the basis of passing the impugned detention order, require a re-look along with earlier grounds of detention, which were made basis of passing of the aforesaid detention order No. DMS/PSA 1155/dated 30.12.2011, which ultimately came to be quashed by this Court. 23. In the earlier grounds of detention as well as the present grounds of detention, one does not find much difference as this time also there are minor additions/alterations here and there. In the earlier grounds of detention, the respondents are covering the distance up to the stage of lodging of FIR No. 86/2011 under Sections 148,336,152 RFC registered at Police Station M. R. Gunj, Srinagar; whereas in the present case, there is reference to F.I.R. No. 02/2012 of Police Station Counter Intelligence, Jammu (CIJ). The case set up by the detenu is that immediately when he was ordered to be released by the Court while quashing the earlier detention order No. DMS/PSA 1155/dated 30.12.2011 vide order dated 02.06.2012, he was released on 31.07.2012, but re-arrested by CIJ on the ground that he was required in connection with FIR No. 02/2012 of Police Station CIJ. In the present grounds of detention, the reasons for arresting the detenu in the said case (FIR No. 02/2012), are set out as under:- "Since normal law has not been proved sufficient to stop you from indulging in secessionist activities, you have been detained under preventive laws on several occasions and last time you were detained under PSA vide this office Order No. DMS/PSA/55/2011 dated 30/12/2011. It is pertinent to mention that secessionism is being propagated and carried out in a highly organised manner and the funding of such activities is doubtful, questionable and at times proved to be managed through Hawala channels. You are being one of the prominent exponents of the secessionist ideology and have also the backing of these elements who provide you the legal support to thwart the legal process. Though, you have no known source of income but have always been represented by top advocates in the Courts, who assail every order of detention passed against you. In the instant case, also the detention order mentioned above was also challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K Srinagar, which has been pleased to quash the said detention order. Though, you have no known source of income but have always been represented by top advocates in the Courts, who assail every order of detention passed against you. In the instant case, also the detention order mentioned above was also challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K Srinagar, which has been pleased to quash the said detention order. In compliance to the directions of the Hon'ble Court you were discharged from PSA but have been arrested by police station Counter Intelligence Jammu (CIJ) on 31/07/2012 as you were required in connection with the investigation of case FIR No. 02/2012 of P/S CIJ. You are presently lodged in Police Station CIJ." 24. What are exactly the allegations as contained in FIR No. 02/2012, for which, the detenu is arrested are neither disclosed in the grounds of detention nor in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents-State. However, the respondents admit in their counter that after the detenu was discharged from PSA, he was arrested by CIJ on 31.07.2012 as he was required in connection with the investigation of FIR No. 02/2012. 18. In the earlier grounds of detention, which were made the basis of passing the detention order No. DMS/PSA 1155/dated 30.12.2011, while referring to the cases of substantive offences already registered against the detenu, it is said that there are reports from discrete source that the detenu has been in touch with the youth who have been found indulged in various stone pelting incidents in District Srinagar and instigating the violence and he was maintaining an indirect contact with them through visitors who visited him in the jail and that his name also finds mention in the print media, in press release issued by secessionist elements, whereas the reasons now spelt out for passing the impugned detention order are that the detenu is presently in custody, but there is likelihood of being admitted to bail and if released on bail, there is well founded apprehension that he will again indulge in anti-national and secessionist activities. The apprehension is based on the facts that he was once released in year 2009 and at that time he was responsible for violent agitation in 2010. The apprehension is based on the facts that he was once released in year 2009 and at that time he was responsible for violent agitation in 2010. It is further said that although the peace has restored, but is still fragile and the people like detenu need to be stopped from disturbing the hard earned peace, therefore, as a preventive measure, he has to be detained under the Act of 1978. 25. It appears that but for changing the language in the earlier grounds of detention and the present one, virtually both the grounds of detention reflect to the previous activities of the detenu, except showing his arrest in case FIR No. 02/2012. Therefore, whatever activities attributed to the detenu calling it prejudicial to the security of the State prior to slapping of earlier detention order No. DMS/PSA 1155/dated 30.12.2011, all that had merged into that order which came to be quashed and for the purpose of passing the impugned detention order, there should have been some fresh nexus of the detenu with nefarious activities prejudicial to the security of the State. That live link is snapped in the present case and it appears that for the purpose of detaining him under PSA, the basis made is, his involvement in FIR No. 02/2012, in which, admittedly he had not moved the bail application as it is his specific stand in para 3(c) of the petition, which fact the respondents have not specifically refuted and have said that there was every possibility of detenu's coming out of the jail after his discharge from PSA, as such, the detention was found necessitated. 26. If one picks up the thread from the earlier order dated 02.06.2012 passed by this Court while quashing the detention order No. DMS/PSA 1155/dated 30.12.2011, in which, the detenu was released from jail on 31.07.2012 and detained in case FIR No. 02/2012 registered at Police Station CIJ, it can be safely said that there was no material with the detaining authority to rush to the conclusion that the detenu would be let off on bail in the said case so as to have recourse to the preventive detention. Most precious right of a citizen is right to freedom and if the same is to be interfered with albeit in the public interest, such powers have to be passed in extra caution and not as an alternative to the ordinary laws of the land. Therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed on that count alone. 27. The other ground taken by Mr. Qayoom is that the entire material was not made available to the detenu, also goes un-rebutted for the reason that the detention record has not been made available to the Court. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer (b) of reply to ground. It reads:- "b) As regards ground (b) it is submitted that the material in the form of grounds of detention has been given to the detenu, which contain his activities and also has got a passing reference of the FIRs. The detenu is already aware of the cases registered against him in different police station. He is actually a militant of Hizullah outfit and then formed it in secessionist outfit namely Muslim League, which advocates the secession of State of J&K from the Union of India and its annexation with Pakistan and for achieving this objective, the detenu as well as the outfit has been resorting to various types of anti national and subversive activities ranging from use of arms and ammunition as well as stone pelting protests and the ultimate impact of the activities is highly prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State." 28. It is not understandable or made clear by the respondents as to how FIR No. 02/2012 came to be registered against the detenu when he was already in custody pursuant to detention order No. DMS/PSA1155/dated 30.12.2011, which was quashed on 02.06.2012. What is the nature of that FIR is not known to anybody. The basis for detaining the detenu under preventive detention is the registration of this FIR and all this forms part of his dossier, which is furnished by the police to the District Magistrate, Srinagar. How could detaining authority (District Magistrate, Srinagar) draw its satisfaction so as to come to the conclusion that detention of the detenu was imperative is not understandable. Detention order is not to be passed in a casual manner without looking at the complete material which is not made available to the Detaining Authority. How could detaining authority (District Magistrate, Srinagar) draw its satisfaction so as to come to the conclusion that detention of the detenu was imperative is not understandable. Detention order is not to be passed in a casual manner without looking at the complete material which is not made available to the Detaining Authority. From this it can be safely inferred that when the Detaining Authority was not provided with the complete material, the detenu was certainly not provided with the same, enabling him to make an effective representation, thus, deprived of his valuable right as enshrined under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India and Section 13 of the Act of 1978. This vital flaw is also staring at the detention order so as to treat it as unsustainable. 29. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, in my considered view, detention order bearing No. DMS/PSA/24/2012 dated 03.08.2012 passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar-respondent No. 2, deserves to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. 30. Consequently, the petition on hand is allowed and respondents are directed to release the detenu- Masarat Alam Bhat S/o Abdul Majid Bhat R/o Zaindar Mohalla, Srinagar, forthwith from the preventive detention under the quashed detention order. 31. Registrar Judicial to convey the order to all concerned without any delay. 32. Disposed of.