JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Pursuant to order of detention dated 13-08-2015, petitioner has been detained in terms of Section 3 of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. As per grounds of detention, petitioner had been arrested on 12th January 2015 by Police Station, Baramulla, in connection with case FIR No. 10/2015 as allegedly 48 strips of SPASMOPROXIVON capsules were recovered from his possession. Subsequently he has been released on bail. 2. In the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that after release on bail petitioner did not mend his ways as he has recycled into the illicit traffic of narcotic drugs. 3. From 12th January 2015 whether any act has been committed by the petitioner is not brought on record nor same is available on the detention record as have been produced. 4. When learned AAG was pointedly asked as to whether any application for cancellation of bail has been filed, the answer was in negative. 5. It is a clear case of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority which is exposed by the fact that in the order of detention, detaining authority has mentioned that on the basis of the dossier and other connected documents subjective satisfaction is derived. What are those documents in addition to the case FIR No. 10/2015, same is not brought on the record nor is available on the detention record. 6. Again it is mentioned that in order to prevent petitioner from indulging in the activities i.e. "illicit traffic and maintenance of public order" petitioner needs to be detained. How these words i.e., "maintenance of public order" have been employed in the order. It appears that the detaining authority has not read Section 3 of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988. 7. Normally whenever the material is produced, the detaining authority after sifting it has to apply its mind and to formulate the grounds of detention based on which order of detention can be passed. It appears that the matter has been handled in a casual manner. 8. Another important ground is that the petitioner has been arrested on 12th January 2015, has been released thereafter. It appears that the matter has been handled in a casual manner. 8. Another important ground is that the petitioner has been arrested on 12th January 2015, has been released thereafter. Dossier had been prepared and submitted to the detaining authority vide its letter dated 5th March 2015 and 15th April 2015 where as order of detention has been passed on 3rd August 2015. It is not shown that any activity is attributable to the petitioner during the period matter remained pending. In addition thereto, detaining authority has not explained as to why after such a long gap of time order of detention has been passed. Viewing from any angle, the order of detention appears to have been passed in a casual manner and without application of mind. Keeping in view the safeguards guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, such type of order cannot be sustained, same is set aside along with the order of extension as is stated to have been passed. Detenue shall be released forthwith provided he is not involved in any other case. Disposed of as above.