JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Challenge is to Order No. DMB/PSA/02 of 2015, dated 21st April 2015, whereby District Magistrate, Budgam, ("Detaining Authority" for short) has, in exercise of powers under Section 8, J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, ordered detention of Masrat Alam Bhat son of Late Abdul Majid Bhat resident of Zainder Mohalla, Srinagar ("detenu" hereinafter) and directed his lodgement in Central Jail, Kathua, Jammu. Petitioner seeks quashment of detention order on grounds detailed in petition. Briefly stated, petitioner's case is that detenu for last two and half decades, except for brief intervals, has been placed under detention. His plight, according to petitioner, started on 22nd October 1990, when he was first detained under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for brevity "the Act"). This was followed by slew of detention orders. Some of detention orders passed were questioned before this Court on the ground that the orders offended Constitutional and Statutory safeguards, guaranteed under Article 22(5), Constitution of India and Section 13 of the Act. Detention order dated 11th December 2010, it is pleaded, was set aside on 10th June 2011 and according to petitioner, order dated 4th August 2011, quashed vide Judgment dated 23rd December 2011, the order dated 30th December 2011, on 2nd June 2012, and the order dated 3rd August 2012, on 19th October 2012. It is pleaded that the Judgments, whereby detention orders were set aside, did not prevent Competent Authority from passing fresh orders, thereby indirectly extending period of detention. The matter pertaining to one of detention orders dated 30th October 2012, is said to have gone up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, according to petitioner, respondents took the stand that detention order dated 30th October 2012, stood revoked vide Government order No. Home-389 of 2013, dated 18th March 2013 and therefore, main petition was rendered infructuous, any fresh detention order directed not to come into force for the period of one week from the date of communication of the order. 2. Petition, it is stated, was disposed of by Supreme Court vide order dated 22nd March 2013, in light of stand taken by respondents. 2. Petition, it is stated, was disposed of by Supreme Court vide order dated 22nd March 2013, in light of stand taken by respondents. The detenu, according to petitioner, was not released and shown arrested, one after other in connection with case FIR No. 215/2010 P/S Pattan; FIR No. 137/2013 P/S Baramulla; FIR No. 220/2009 P/S Bandipora; FIR No. 130/2010 P/S CIK; FIR No. 60/2010 P/S Nigeen; FIR No. 83/2013 P/S Kathua and FIR No. 74/2010 P/S Shaheed Gunj, to avoid his release in compliance of orders, granting him bail in cases registered against him. He is said to have been again put under preventive detention vide order dated 8th January 2014. 3. Aggrieved with his detention order dated 8th January 2014, detenu is said to have questioned the detention order in HCP 72/2014. Petitioner's case is that though respondents on 12th August 2014 informed the Court that detention order dated 8th January 2014 had not received approval of Government, yet detenu was not released, even if so directed by this Court, while disposing of HCP No. 72/2014. He, according to petitioner, was shown arrested in connection with a substantive offence only to be followed by yet another detention order. It is averred that before period of detention would end, respondents released detenu from custody in March 2015, but barely two months after his release, case FIR No. 92/2015, under section 120-B, 121, 124-A, 147, 341, 336 and 427 RPC read with section 13 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, was registered against detenu at police station Budgam on 15th April 2015 and arrested and put in police station Budgam in connection with aforementioned case. Detenu, it is stated, has been again placed under preventive detention vide order dated April 21, 2015, impugned in petition, and lodged in Central Jail, Kotbalwal, Jammu. In the meantime, according to petitioner, his application for grant of bail in case FIR No. 92/2015 P/S Budgam, was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam, on 25th April 2015. 4. Detention order dated 21st April 2015, is questioned on the ground that it has been passed while detenu was in police custody in case FIR No. 92/2015 registered at Police Station Budgam and bail application pending consideration before competent court. It is contended that the Detaining Authority ought to have waited till bail application was disposed of. 4. Detention order dated 21st April 2015, is questioned on the ground that it has been passed while detenu was in police custody in case FIR No. 92/2015 registered at Police Station Budgam and bail application pending consideration before competent court. It is contended that the Detaining Authority ought to have waited till bail application was disposed of. It is averred that detention order did not disclose any compelling reason, making it necessary to order detention even while detenu was in police custody in a substantive offence. Respondents, it is stated, ought to have opposed bail application, instead oppressing into service Section 8 of the Act. Detaining Authority, according to petitioner, was not to feel persuaded by assumption and presumptions while slapping detention order, when bail application was pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam. 5. Detention order is also challenged on the ground that material considered and relied upon by Detaining Authority while making detention order, was not provided to detenu and therefore, detenu deprived of his right to make a representation against detention order. It is pleaded that once detenu was in police custody in substantive offence, it was not open to Detaining Authority to fall back on Section 8 of the Act and order his preventive detention unless there were compelling reasons to have recourse to the Act. It is insisted that only because detenu had laid application for grant of bail, was not by itself to be construed as compelling reason for his detention. It is pointed out that on 21st April 2015, i.e. the date, detention order was slapped on detenu. Detaining Authority had nothing before it to presume that application would be granted and detenu admitted to bail. 6. Petitioner, in particular, is aggrieved with failure on part of Detaining Authority to provide copy of letter dated 21st April 2015, received by it from Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam-respondent No. 3 herein, and material appended to communication. It is further averred that non-supply of record relating to 27 criminal cases, that according to Detaining Authority, stood registered against detenu as also copies of FIR No. 54/2015 P/S Sumbal; FIR No. 68/2015 PS Sopore; FIR No. 30/2015 P/S Kralgund; and FIR No. 92/2015, has prevented detenu from making effective and meaningful use of Constitutional and Statutory safeguards available to him. The grounds of detention are said to be vague and misleading, resulting in infringement of aforementioned safeguards. 7. The ground set out in detention order that normal law of land was not sufficient to stop detenu from indulging in activities prejudicial- to maintenance of security of the State, according to petitioner, is not a. valid ground available under law to pass detention order and therefore, detention order suffers from non-application of mind. Detaining Authority is said not to have himself prepared detention order and instead reproduced in Order the report received from respondent No. 3. Detaining Authority, it is averred, considered report relating to alleged activities of detenu in 2008, 2009 and 2010, while issuing detention order on 21st April 2015. This according to petitioner is not permissible and therefore, indicative of non-application of mind on part of Detaining Authority. Detention order is also said to be based on extraneous and mala fide considerations, not recognised under law. 8. Respondents oppose petition on the ground that detenu is heading one of prominent secessionist outfits and has been right from 1990 indulging in terrorist and secessionist activities aiming at seceding the State of J&K from Union of India. Reply filed, gives details of alleged anti-national and secessionist activities attributed to detenu. It is admitted that detenu has been arrested several time and detained under J&K Public Safety Act and that earlier detention orders dated 8th January 2014 read with corrigendum dated 14th June 2014 and 15th September 2014, were not approved by Government. It is admitted that sometime before detention order dated 21st April 2015 was passed, detenu was arrested in connection with case FIR No. 92/2015 and that having regard to track record of detenu and provocative speeches made. Detaining Authority was compelled to pass detention order impugned in petition. It is further admitted that bail application laid by detenu was later rejected by the court, though detenu, notwithstanding pendency of bail application, was detained under compelling circumstances. It is denied that material relied upon by Detaining Authority, while passing detention order, was not furnished to detenu or grounds of detention were not read over to detenu at the time of execution of detention order. It is insisted that detenu, though provided entire material, did not find it necessary to file representation to Competent Authority. It is denied that material relied upon by Detaining Authority, while passing detention order, was not furnished to detenu or grounds of detention were not read over to detenu at the time of execution of detention order. It is insisted that detenu, though provided entire material, did not find it necessary to file representation to Competent Authority. Detention order, according to respondents, was approved by Government vide Government order No. Home/PBV/450/2015, dated 1st May 2015 and thereafter by Advisory Board on 26th May 2015. Government is said to have thereafter vide order dated 1st June 2015 determined period of detention. 9. I have gone through pleadings as also detention record made available by Additional Advocate General. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length. 10. Preventive detention is undemocratic and repugnant to rule of law. It violates fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence, providing for presumption of innocence of accused till he is proved guilty on a fair and transparent trial. It not only runs contrary to Constitutional ethos but also bruises the Gandhi an thought, that forms weft and warp of our socio-political fabric. Bengal Regulation-III of 1818 (Bengal State Prisoners Regulation, III of 1818) possibly first detention law and Defence of India Act, 1939 as also Defence of India Rules made thereunder, should not have seen reincarnation after dawn of independence as such laws were not in tune with Constitutional values embedded in Chapter III of the Constitution. However, need to leave scope for preventive detention law was felt by Frames against backdrop of unprecedented civil disturbances at the last stage of our independence movement, involving colossal loss of life and property. It is pertinent to note that Constitution does not directly provide for preventive detention but leaves room for a law providing for such detention. The purpose is that whenever such a law is enacted, it goes through legislative filtration and every effort is made to make it as far as possible fair, just and reasonable for detenu held in custody without trial and at least, safeguards guaranteed under Article 22, get reflected in such law. It is, therefore, necessary that whenever detention order is made, the Court called upon to examine it, is alive to fact that step taken by Detaining Authority is an extraordinary step curtailing liberty of detenu and therefore, is to pass strict test of total conformity with Constitutional and Statutory mandate. 11. It is, therefore, necessary that whenever detention order is made, the Court called upon to examine it, is alive to fact that step taken by Detaining Authority is an extraordinary step curtailing liberty of detenu and therefore, is to pass strict test of total conformity with Constitutional and Statutory mandate. 11. Preventive detention law, only because scope is left for its enactment under Article 22, Constitution of India, is not to overlook different facets of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In other words, even if a person is placed under preventive detention on a suspicion that in the event he is not so detained, he may indulge in activities prejudicial to security of the State or public order, he does not get denuded of all his rights. Preventive detention law, except for preventive detention of a person, must satisfy "fair, just and reasonable" test. It must not be fair, just and reasonable only in content but in operation as well. Section 8 of the Act empowers the Authority mentioned therein to order preventive detention of a person on grounds set out therein. Order made is to remain in force for 12 days unless it is approved by Government. Even after approval of Government and thereafter of Advisory Board, it is to remain in force for a period of three months in first instance, extendable to maximum period of 12 months from the date of detention. Maximum period of detention under detention order, therefore, is 12 months and its life cannot be extended beyond such period for any reason whatsoever. The object is to leave no scope for misuse of preventive detention tool available to law enforcing agency to detain a person on any of grounds delineated in Section 8 of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that preventive detention is to be treated as temporary or transitory tool and whenever detenu is involved in a substantive offence, criminal case is registered or charge sheet is pending against him, ordinary law is to be given a chance. We have to realise that by prolonging detention beyond permissible limits, we are literally sentencing detenu, who incidentally is accused in pending criminal case without trial. To a detenu, slapped with repeated detention orders, one after another, it is immaterial whether his detention is preventive or punitive. We have to realise that by prolonging detention beyond permissible limits, we are literally sentencing detenu, who incidentally is accused in pending criminal case without trial. To a detenu, slapped with repeated detention orders, one after another, it is immaterial whether his detention is preventive or punitive. The Apex Court in Rekha's case (supra), noticing real fallout of preventive detention on life and personal liberty of detenu, has observed: "It is all very well to say that preventive detention is preventive not punitive. The truth of the matter, though, is that in substance a detention order of one year (or any other period) is a punishment of one year's imprisonment. What difference is it to the detenue whether his imprisonment is called preventive or punitive." 12. To sum up, though J&K Public Safely Act, 1978, does not forbid or close option for a second detention order, after first outlives its life, yet Constitutional scheme as well as Act mandate that repeated and successive detention orders are not to be passed against detenu, in effect, placing him under detention for a period much beyond period permissible under law. To discourage repeated detention orders - one after another, it has been held that second detention order can be passed only on fresh grounds and that such grounds must not point to omissions or commission alleged against detenu while in detention. In present case, detenu, as stated by respondents in their reply, is accused in as many as 27 criminal cases, registered in different police station under investigation or pending before various courts. Respondents instead of taking effective steps to conclude investigation and to prosecute criminal cases pending against detenu and to oppose grant of bail or even seek cancellation of bail wherever necessary, have resorted to his detention under the Act. If petitioner is to be believed, respondents have in all slapped 19 detention orders on detenu during last two and half decades. In other words, detenu has suffered detention for most of last 25 years with brief intervals. Such recourse is repugnant to spirit and mandate of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The Act has been operated against detenu in an unfair, unjust and unreasonable manner, not in tune with fundamental right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution. Such recourse is repugnant to spirit and mandate of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The Act has been operated against detenu in an unfair, unjust and unreasonable manner, not in tune with fundamental right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution. Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another ( 1978 (1) SCC 248 ), emphasizing inter se relationship of Articles 14, 19 and 21, has observed: "The law must therefore, now be taken to be well-settled, that Art. 21 does not exclude Article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of "personal liberty" and there is consequently no infringement of the Fundamental Right conferred by Art. 21, such law insofar as it abridges or takes away any Fundamental Right, under Article 19 would have to meet the challenge of that Article. This proposition can no longer be disputed after the decisions in R.C. Cooper's case, Shambu Nath Sarkar's case and Haradhana Saha's case. Now if a law depriving a person of 'personal liberty' and prescribing a procedure for that purpose within the meaning of Article 21 has to stand the test of one or more of the Fundamental Rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation ex hypothesis, it is also liable to be tested with reference to Article 14." In the words of Justice Krishna Iyer "law is reasonable law, not another enacted piece". It would be advantageous to extract following observations made by Supreme Court in Rekha's case (supra): "13. In our opinion, Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India which permits preventive detention is only an exception to Article 21 of the Constitution. An exception is an exception, and cannot ordinarily nullify the full force of the main rule, which is the right to liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution. Fundamental rights are meant for protecting the civil liberties of the people, and not to put them in jail for a long period without recourse to a lawyer and without a trial. As observed in R. v. Secy. Fundamental rights are meant for protecting the civil liberties of the people, and not to put them in jail for a long period without recourse to a lawyer and without a trial. As observed in R. v. Secy. of State for the Home Dept., Ex Parte Stafford, (1998) 1 WLR 503 (CA):- "The imposition of what is in effect a substantial term of imprisonment by the exercise of executive discretion, without trial, lies uneasily with ordinary concepts of the rule of law. 20. In our opinion, Article 22(3)(b) cannot be read in isolation, but must be read along with Articles 19 and 21, vide Constitution Bench decision of this Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 271 ." Repeated detention orders - one after other, in effect perpetuating preventive detention (in present case for two and half decades except brief intervals), therefore, would offend spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution, even if preventive detention law does not expressly forbid such a course. Framers of the Constitution could have least anticipated that scope for preventive detention law left in Article 22 of the Constitution, would lead to such consequence and the law so enacted would make it possible for preventive detention of a person facing criminal charge, for a substantive part of his life. The order impugned deserves to be set-aside on this ground alone. 13. Detenu, placed under preventive detention, is held in custody without trial. Neither formal charge is framed against him nor evidence adduced in support of charge. He is not given an opportunity to come up with his defence. He is detained on basis of mere suspicion. Jurisdiction exercised, therefore, is a jurisdiction of suspicion. Detenu has a few Constitutional and Statutory safeguards. Against above backdrop, such safeguards are to be strictly adhered to. He is not given an opportunity to come up with his defence. He is detained on basis of mere suspicion. Jurisdiction exercised, therefore, is a jurisdiction of suspicion. Detenu has a few Constitutional and Statutory safeguards. Against above backdrop, such safeguards are to be strictly adhered to. Supreme Court in Dhannajoy Dass v. District Magistrate ( AIR 1982 SC 1315 ) while emphasizing importance of safeguards, has observed: "The law is by now well settled that the detenue has two rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution: (1) to be informed, as soon as may be of the grounds on which the order of detention is made, that is, the grounds which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and (2) to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order of detention, that is to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make representation which on being considered may obtain relief to him." The principle is reiterated in Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B.K. Jha and another ( 1987 2 SCC 22 ). It is observed: "The procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a detenue since the court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The procedural requirements are, therefore to be strictly complied with if any value is to be attached to the liberty of the subject and the Constitutional rights guaranteed to him in that regard". It is also echoed in Union of India v. Chaya Ghoshal, ( 2005 (10) SCC 97 ), where it was held: "..the laws of preventive detention are to be strictly construed, and a meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however, technical, is mandatory." 14. First and foremost safeguard guaranteed to detenu is to furnish grounds of detention and all material relied upon by Detaining Authority, to detenu and further to explain to detenu in language he understand grounds that have persuaded Detaining Authority to order his detention. It may be necessary to provide translated copy of grounds of detention and other material considered by Detaining Authority to detenu. Next safeguard is to provide detenu an opportunity to make representation against his detention. It may be necessary to provide translated copy of grounds of detention and other material considered by Detaining Authority to detenu. Next safeguard is to provide detenu an opportunity to make representation against his detention. Detenu has a right to represent against his detention to Detaining Authority before detention order finds approval of Government and thereafter make such representation to Government Right to represent against preventive detention is not to be reduced to idle formality. It is to be made effective and meaningful by providing detenu all the material relied upon by Detaining Authority while making detention order. It is only after such material is provided to detenu that he may be in a position to convince Detaining Authority and thereafter Government that whatever is alleged against him, is devoid of any substance and his detention, therefore, unwarranted. Having said so, let us now proceed to examine whether aforesaid material was provided to detenu and his Constitutional and Statutory safeguards respected. 15. Perusal of detention record would reveal that material relied upon by Detaining Authority and mentioned in grounds of detention, has not been furnished in its entirety to the detenu. Though receipt dated 23rd April 2015 available on file attributed to detenu would indicate that grounds of detention comprising of 27 leaves were provided to detenu in token whereof his signature was taken, yet details of documents supplied are not given in receipt or in the endorsement recorded by executing officer on reverse of detention order. While grounds of detention refer to detenu's involvement in as many as 27 criminal cases, mention in particular is made of FIR No. 53/2015 under Section 13 ULA(P) Act P/S Sumbal; FIR No. 68/2015 under Section 153-A, 504 RPC P/S Sopore. Detenu, as detention record would reveal, has been only provided copy of FIR No. 92/2015 P/S Budgam and statement of one ASI Bashir Anmad No. 183/CID. Copies of other FIRs (24 in number) and record connected therewith have not been furnished to detenu. It needs no emphasis that not only grounds of detention but entire record that weighs with Detaining Authority while making detention order, is to be handed over to detenu at the time of execution of detention order enabling him to make effective and meaningful exercise of Constitutional and Statutory safeguards. Respondents by withholding important record from detenu have infringed Constitutional and Statutory safeguards guaranteed to the detenu. 16. Respondents by withholding important record from detenu have infringed Constitutional and Statutory safeguards guaranteed to the detenu. 16. Above discussion apart, grounds of detention relied upon by Detaining Authority to order preventive detention of detenu mostly refer to alleged omissions and commissions attributed to detenu of 2008, 2009 and 2010, and relied upon to pass previous detention orders against detenu. Such grounds of detention, obviously, were stale and not available to pass fresh detention, a few years after such events are alleged to have taken place. Furthermore, same grounds were urged in support of previous detention orders, quashed by the Court. It is well settled law that once a detention order is quashed, the grounds in support of such order loose all significance and cannot be used to pass fresh detention order. Grounds of detention also refer to activities of detenu while he was under detention. The grounds are vague, except for some exceptions, and are bound to have left detenu guessing about what exactly weighed with Detaining Authority while passing detention order and that he was required to explain while exercising Constitutional and Statutory guarantees. To illustrate, detenu is alleged to have made provocative speeches while addressing gatherings at different places. Details of such speeches are not spelt out even with reasonable brevity, so as to enable detenu to put forth his explanation. Again detenu is said to have remained extremely proactive and lead violent protests in various parts of Valley, especially in Srinagar City, without giving details of such protests. Grounds of detention state that detenu is involved in 27 criminal cases. But necessary particulars of all the cases registered against him and dates when he was arrested are not given. Such other instances make grounds of detention, vague, ambiguous and sketchy, making it impossible for detenu to make effective and meaningful representation against his detention. Resultantly, detenu's right of being informed of grounds of detention with sufficient clarity immediately after his detention, guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Act, has been violated. 17. Such other instances make grounds of detention, vague, ambiguous and sketchy, making it impossible for detenu to make effective and meaningful representation against his detention. Resultantly, detenu's right of being informed of grounds of detention with sufficient clarity immediately after his detention, guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Act, has been violated. 17. Whenever and wherever a person is arrested in a substantive offence, course open to law enforcing agency is to take recourse to ordinary law and in the event it is satisfied that accused may repeat offence, obstruct investigation, tamper with evidence likely to be collected and produced against him during trial or give slip to law, right course would be to oppose application made by accused to get enlarged on bail. In present case, detenu on the date detention order was made, was in police custody in connection with case FIR No. 92/2015. In the event Detaining Authority was satisfied that detenu in case of his bail, was likely to go ahead with his secessionist and antinational activities, it was to fully oppose bid made by detenu to get admitted to bail. It needs no emphasis that preventive detention is an extra ordinary measure meant for extraordinary situations and that law enforcing agencies are to have recourse to preventive detention only in case an effort to resist grant of bail to accused, fails or there is a strong suspicion that accused may be let off on bail. Detenu, as already pointed out, was in police custody on the date impugned order was made and respondents without waiting for outcome of application fell back upon Section 8 of the Act. True that filing of a bail application by detenu may lead to the apprehension that he may be let off on bail but such an apprehension could not have been reasonably nursed in peculiar facts of the case. Respondents having regard to involvement of detenu in a large number of criminal cases and lastly in case FIR No. 92/2015, were not to jump to conclusion that application under Section 497 Cr.P.C. laid by detenu was bound to succeed and detenu's release required to be pre-empted by slapping detention order before bail application was disposed of. Respondents having regard to involvement of detenu in a large number of criminal cases and lastly in case FIR No. 92/2015, were not to jump to conclusion that application under Section 497 Cr.P.C. laid by detenu was bound to succeed and detenu's release required to be pre-empted by slapping detention order before bail application was disposed of. It is pertinent to point out that it was not a case where co-accused of detenu was already let off on bail, so as to result in a reasonable belief that detenu may be also admitted to bail. Whenever detenu is in police custody, prevention detention as laid down in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2011 (4) 260) is to be made only in case there is a reasonable belief that apprehended activities of detenu are prejudicial to the security of State or public order and that there is reasonable apprehension that detenu may be let off on bail. It would be appropriate to extract following observations by Supreme Court in Rekha's case (supra): "10. In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in similar cases mentioning the date of the orders, the bail application number, whether the bail order was passed in respect of co-accused in the same case, and whether the case of the co-accused was on the same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of course, it could be argued that there is likelihood of the accused being released on bail, because it is the normal practice of most courts that if a co-accused has been granted bail and his case is on the same footing as that of the petitioner, then the petitioner is ordinarily granted bail. However, the respondent authority should have given details about the alleged bail order in similar cases, which has not been done in the present case. However, the respondent authority should have given details about the alleged bail order in similar cases, which has not been done in the present case. A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored." This Court in Syed Asiya Andrabi v. State of J&K and others ( 2011 (3) JKJ 204 [HC]), while relying on Rekha's case (supra), observed: "Whenever 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." In present case there was no scope for a reasonable belief that detenu would be admitted to bail. This was later confirmed when after detention order was passed and detenu's application for bail was rejected by Trial Court on 25th April 2015. 18. In the circumstances and for reasons discussed, petition is destined to succeed. It is, accordingly, allowed and Order No. DMB/PSA/02 of 2015, dated 21st April 2015, issued by District Magistrate, Budgam, whereby Mr. Masrat Alarm Bhat son of Late Abdul Majid Bhat resident of Zainder Mohalla, Srinagar, has been placed under preventive detention is quashed. Detenu be released from preventive detention under Order No. DMB/PSA/02 of 2015, dated 21st April 2015. 19. Disposed of. Detention record be returned to counsel for respondents.