JUDGMENT : 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition, challenges order No. 139/DMB/PSA/2017 dated 08.11.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, herein respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been detained in preventive detention under section 8(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short the Act). 2. The impugned order has been challenged on various grounds. It is contended that ever since his arrest by the security forces in the year 2011, petitioner has been repeatedly detained in preventive detention. The earlier two orders of detention passed against him have been quashed by this Court. It is contended in this regard that petitioner was initially detained vide order No. 160/DMB/PSA/2016 dated 01.11.2016 passed by respondent No. 2. This order was quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 03.04.2017 passed in HCP No. 585/2016. He, however, was not released and was again taken in preventive detention by virtue of order No. 06/DMB/PSA/2017 dated 10.04.2017. The said order too was quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 01.09.2017 in HCP No. 130/2017. He was discharged from the preventive detention and shifted to Police Station, Tarzo and was detained again in preventive detention vide order No. 117/DMB/PSA/2017 dated 10.10.2017. The said order, however, was not approved by the Government and refusal was conveyed to the detaining authority vide communication dated 16.10.2017. The petitioner was not released this time also and the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order of detention, whereby petitioner was again taken into prevention detention. 3. The facts relating to the earlier orders of detention dated 01.11.2016 and 10.04.2017 and both these orders having been quashed by this Court have not been denied by the respondents. It is not denied also that the third order of detention passed by the detaining authority on 10.10.2017was not approved by the Government and information in this regard was conveyed to the detaining authority vide communication dated 16.10.2017. A copy of this intimation has been produced as annexure P6 to the petition. By virtue of this communication, the Government, Home Department, besides not approving the order of detention dated 10.10.2017, had also impressed upon the detaining authority that “it should be ensured that subject is not kept in wrongful confinement”. 4. A copy of this intimation has been produced as annexure P6 to the petition. By virtue of this communication, the Government, Home Department, besides not approving the order of detention dated 10.10.2017, had also impressed upon the detaining authority that “it should be ensured that subject is not kept in wrongful confinement”. 4. The grounds of detention formulated by the detaining authority in support of impugned detention order dated 08.11.2017, insofar as they relate to the incident having taken place after passing of the third order of detention dated 10.10.2017 and refusal of its approval by the Government vide communication dated 16.10.2017, would show that on 27.10.2017 the petitioner and his associates were heading one unruly/violent mob armed with lathies and stones, which resorted to heavy stone pelting to Police/CRPF ‘nafree’ deployed for law and order at Main Chowk, Sopore with the intention to kill them and disturb the situation in the area and in this regard FIR No. 309/2017 was registered with Police Station, Sopore under section 147, 148, 149, 336 and 307 RPC. 5. The impugned order of detention dated 08.11.2017 has been challenged primarily on the ground that the petitioner, after he was falsely implicated in FIR No. 309/2017 and taken in custody, had neither applied for bail nor was released on bail in this case. No compelling reasons for passing the order of preventive detention against him, when he was already in custody of the State Authorities in connection with substantive offences registered as 309/2017, have been mentioned in the order of detention or the grounds formulated by the detaining authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. ShafqatHussain, submitted vehemently that an order of detention passed at a time when detenu is in the custody of the State Agencies is illegal. Learned counsel cited Binod Singh v District Magistrate Dhanbad, Bihar and others, (1986) 4 SCC 416 and Surya Prakash Sharma v State of U.P. and others, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 195. 6. The stand of the respondents in this regard is that after petitioner’s involvement in the incident comprised in FIR No. 309/2017 dossier was prepared by the police as it was found that activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and normal law of land was not sufficient to deter him from his nefarious activities. 7. 7. It has not been denied and is indisputable that as at the time of passing of the impugned order of detention the petitioner had already been taken in custody by the police because of his involvement in FIR No. 309/2017 relating to the incident of stone pelting having taken place on 27.10.2017. Legal position in regard to preventive detention of a person, who is already in custody of the State Agencies in connection with commission of an offence under substantive law, is well settled. Normally, preventive detention of such a person should not be ordered. Nonetheless, preventive detention of such a person can still be ordered, if the detaining authority has compelling reasons to believe that he is likely to be released in the substantive offence either on bail or due to his acquittal or discharge. In Binod Singh's case (supra) Supreme Court has held that "if a man is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of his being released, the power of preventive detention should not be exercised." In Surya Prakash Sharma’s case, Supreme Court has referred to an earlier three-Judge Bench decision of the Court in Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 746 , where the question has been answered in following words: “The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu is already in detention: and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implied that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities." 8. It is not stated in the grounds of detention or the order of detention that the petitioner had applied for bail in FIR No. 309/2017and/or there was reason to believe that he was likely to be released. Nothing in this regard is stated in the counter affidavit also. 9. To sum up thus, the order of detention or the grounds of detention formulated by the detaining authority sans any compelling reason necessitating the preventive detention of the petitioner, notwithstanding that he was already in custody for his alleged involvement in commission of offence in FIR No. 309/2017 (supra). Such an order cannot sustain and is liable to be quashed on this score alone. 10. Viewed thus, this petition is allowed as it has merit and in the result, the impugned order dated 08.11.2017 (supra) is quashed. Petitioner be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. 11. Record of the case be remitted back to the learned counsel for the respondents.