JUDGMENT 1. A mother who is suffering from terminal disease and was surgically operated upon is craving for release of her son by filing HCP No. 281/2016. 2. The detenu Ashiq Hussain Dar @ Ashu S/o Bashir Ahmad Dar R/o Naikpora Kursoo, Padshaibagh, Srinagar who was initially arrested in FIR NO: 133 of 2016 registered at Police Station, Sadder u/s 147, 148, 149, 336, 436, 332 and 427 RPC. has been granted interim bail by learned Pr. Sessions Judge, Srinagar FIR vide its order dated 15th September, 2016. 3. In the bail order, the learned Pr. Sessions Judge has observed “ prima facie it is not brought forth as to how the applicant has been connected with commission of offences and as such, the allegations levelled against the accused come under serious cloud and cannot be believed and treated as sufficient ground for rejection of the bail”. 4. Before this the learned Pr. Sessions Judge has also observed in the aforesaid bail order that petitioner’s name does not figure in the FIR. 5. Interim bail was granted on 15th September, 2016, whereas, the detenu was ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate, Srinagar in exercise of powers conferred on him by section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act of 1978 (Act of 1978) vide order No. DMS/PSA/34/2016 dated 10th September, 2016. 6. In pursuance to the aforesaid detention order, the detenu has been lodged at Kot-Balwal Jail, Jammu. 7. The mother of the detenu filed HCP No. 281/2016, wherein, she challenged the order of detention passed by respondent No. 2. The mother of the petitioner also filed MP No. 01/2016, in which she prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents for shifting of the petitioner from the jail where he is lodged to Central Jail, Srinagar. 8. It is also prayed that any other relief which this Court deems fit and proper be also passed. 9. The Court on 27th September, 2016 has issued notice returnable within two weeks in the main petition and has further directed for immediate listing of the case in the regular cause list. 10. The MP No: 01/2016 was considered by the Court on 30th September, 2016. 9. The Court on 27th September, 2016 has issued notice returnable within two weeks in the main petition and has further directed for immediate listing of the case in the regular cause list. 10. The MP No: 01/2016 was considered by the Court on 30th September, 2016. The Court amongst others recorded reason that mother of the detenu is suffering from terminal disease and accordingly directed the respondents 1 and 2 to either arrange meeting of the mother with the detenu by arranging Air fare or in the alternative the respondents were directed to produce the detenu before the Court to enable the mother to meet her son. The case was ordered to be listed on 07th October, 2016. 11. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, the detenu is brought before the Court today by the police authorities. 12. The mother of the detenu submitted that the detenu is innocent person and he looks after her as her other son has already died. She prayed for release of her son. 13. Mr. B.A. Dar, learned AAG vehemently opposed the submission made by the mother of the detenu, in so far , she prayed for release of the detenu. Learned Counsel submitted that the notice has been issued in the main petition and respondents have yet to file reply affidavit. 14. Learned counsel submitted that in pursuance to order dated 30th September, 2016, detenu has been produced before this Court and detenu had a meeting with her mother. 15. True it is that it is the legal obligation of the State and its various limbs to maintain order in the society. For maintaining order in the Society, the State and its authorities have to take recourse to the laws and one of the law enacted by the State legislature is Act of 1978. 16. The Act of 1978 enables the competent Statutory authorities to order for preventive detention of a person whose activities it apprehends would either pose threat to the security of the State or to the public order. 17. When a person is taken in the preventive custody in terms of provision of Act of 1978, he is not produced before any Court of law and the allegation levelled against him are not made subject to proof at trial in the Court of law. The entire action is taken on the presumptive conclusions. 17. When a person is taken in the preventive custody in terms of provision of Act of 1978, he is not produced before any Court of law and the allegation levelled against him are not made subject to proof at trial in the Court of law. The entire action is taken on the presumptive conclusions. The burden to detain a person is thus heavy on the authority. 18. The individual right is guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. The legal rights of the members of the Society at large have to be also kept in mind by the State and its authorities. 19. The Article 21 of Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty excepting by following procedure established by law. The right to personal liberty though birthright of every person and guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as already stated, is not an absolute right. No person, can claim absolute freedom indulge in any activity which would be illegal or immoral and would jeopardize the rights of the member of the society at large. However, as already stated, a person can be deprived of his personal liberty only by following the procedure established by law. 20. Article 22 Constitution of India authorizes the State for making preventive detention laws. This Article has, however, inbuilt safe guards provided for citizens. 21. The liberty of an individual is a cherished right which the Court more particularly the Constitutional courts are jealously and zealously guarding. 22. Reverting to the facts of this case, whatever is stated in the grounds of detention is that the detenu has come under adverse notice of police for his alleged involvement in antinational activities which are aimed at disturbing public tranquillity and peace in the areas of Mehjoor Nagar, Natipora, Chanapora, Padsgaibagh, Rambagh and its adjacent areas. 23. Prima facie, it appears that grounds of detention are nothing but vague and bald summary of allegations. No specific allegation is levelled against the detenue in the grounds of detention. Even no single date is mentioned about his alleged involvement in any single incident. This narration of vague story contained in the grounds of detention, prima facie cannot become a ground in law for detaining a person under preventive detention laws. 24. No specific allegation is levelled against the detenue in the grounds of detention. Even no single date is mentioned about his alleged involvement in any single incident. This narration of vague story contained in the grounds of detention, prima facie cannot become a ground in law for detaining a person under preventive detention laws. 24. In the detention order, the detaining authority has stated that the SSP, Srinagar has produced material record, such as dossier and “other connected document” in respect of the detenu. What are these connected documents, nothing is mentioned in the detention order of in the grounds of detention. Prima facie, such detention order is unsustainable in law. 25. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, an extraordinary prima facie case is made out for staying the order of detention. 26. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order No. DMS/PSA/34/2016 dated 10th September, 2016 passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar is stayed. 27. The detenu who is present in the Court and has already been granted interim bail in FIR No. 133/2016 registered at Police Station, Sadder is ordered to be handed over to his mother, who is present in the Court. The detenu shall appear before the Court on the date fixed in the main petition. 28. Registrar Judicial of this Court to provide necessary certificate to the police Officer who escorted the detenu from Jammu to Srinagar stating therein that the detenu has been released by the Court.