JUDGMENT : 1. Petition, by the medium of instant petition, seeks quashment of detention order No.51/DMB/PSA/2017 dated 07.07.2018, issued by District Magistrate, Baramulla, in terms whereof, Fayaz Ahmad War (hereinafter referred to as the detenue) has been taken into preventive custody and lodged in Central Jail, Kotebhulwal, so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. 2. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that allegedly detenue was implicated in case FIR No.174/2018 P/S Sopore, for commission of offence under Section 7/25 Arms Act and 13 ULA (P) Ac, he had been taken in custody in connection with said case, he had not applied for bail, when it was so, how could he be taken into preventive custody. 3. It is trite that preventive orders can be passed even when a person is in police custody or involved in a criminal case but for so doing, compelling reasons are to be recorded. No such reason has been recorded. When it is so, order of detention becomes unsustainable. In this connection, it shall be quite apt to quote following Para from the judgment T. P. Moideen Koya vs. Government of Kerala and ors. reported in 2004 (8) SCC 106 : “……in law there is no bar in passing a detention order even against a person who is already in custody in respect of a criminal offence if the detaining authority is subjectively satisfied that detention order should be passed and that there must be cogent material before the authority passing the detention order for inferring that the detenue was likely to be released on bail.” 4. Second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the material forming base of the grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention has not been supplied to the detenue disabling him from making an effective representation against his detention. It is also contended that the detenue has also been disabled from making an effective representation by not supplying him the translated copies of the ground of detention which are in English language besides being in a hyper technical language which the detenue is not in a position to understand being not so qualified. 5. It is also contended that the detenue has also been disabled from making an effective representation by not supplying him the translated copies of the ground of detention which are in English language besides being in a hyper technical language which the detenue is not in a position to understand being not so qualified. 5. From the perusal of the material before me, nothing comes to the fore to show that that the material forming base of the grounds of detention has been supplied to the detenue which has prejudiced the detenue as he could not submit an effective representation against his detention in absence of such material. Infringement of such right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution would render the order of detention as illegal. 6. It is quite apposite to quote para 10 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Ibrahim Ahmad Bhatti alias Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Kandar Ahmad Wagher alias Iqbal alias Gulam Vs. State of Gujarat and others”, (1982) 3 SCC 440 : “10. Two propositions having a bearing on the points at issue in the case before us, clearly merge from the aforesaid resume of decided cases : (a) all documents, statements and other materials incorporated in the grounds by reference and which have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu along with the grounds or in any event not later than five days ordinarily and in the exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than 15 days from the date of his detention and (b) all such material must be furnished to him in a script or language which he understands and failure to do either of the two things would amount to a breach of the two duties cast on the detaining authority under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Relying upon this legal position counsel for the petitioner urged before us that in the instant case a breach of the mandate contained in Article 22 (5) read with Section 3 (3) of the COFEPOSA is clearly involved because of three things that have happened, namely, (i) supply of Urdu translations of the bulk of documents and statements incorporated in the grounds and relied upon by the detaining authority was delayed beyond the normal period of 5 days without any exceptional circumstances obtaining in the matter, (ii) the alleged exceptional circumstances purporting to justify the delay and the fact that the reasons had been recorded in writing were not communicated to the detenu which has prevented him from making effective representation against his continued detention and (iii) Urdu translations of quite a few documents and statements incorporated in the grounds and relied upon by the detaining authority have not been supplied to him at all. As regards the first two aspects counsel relied upon two decisions of the Patna High Court, namely, Bishwa Mohan Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar and Ors.(1) and Bishwanath Prasad Keshari v. State of Bihar & Ors.(2) where the Patna High Court has taken the view that not merely should the exceptional circumstances exist justifying the delayed supply of the grounds of detention but these should be communicated to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation. Counsel urged that because of the aforesaid failure the continued detention of the petitioner must be held to be illegal. We find considerable force in these submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.” 7. The respondents, in the counter affidavit, have not stated anything as to whether the grounds of detention were read over, explained and served to the detenue. Looking at the said ground from yet another angle, what can be said is that to eradicate all the doubts, it was incumbent on the part of the person, who did the exercise of handing over the documents and conveying the contents thereof to the detenu, to file an affidavit in order to attach a semblance of fairness to his actions. Resort can, in this behalf, be had to the law laid down by the Apex Court of the country in the case of “State Legal Aid Committee, J&K versus State of J&K & others, reported in AIR 2005 SC 1270 , wherein it has been held as under: “Though several questions have been raised in this petition, it is not necessary to deal with them in detail as we find that there is no definite material to show that the requirements of Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, (in short the Act), requiring the grounds of order of detention to be disclosed/ communicated to the person affected by the order has been complied with. Though in the affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that the contents of the warrants and grounds of detention were served, read over and explained to the assesse and he was informed about his right to make a representation against the detention, if he so desired, there is no material placed on record to substantiate this stand. It is stated in the affidavit that the detenue refused to receive copy of the detention order and also refused to put his signatures on the documents. The least the State could have done is to file an affidavit of the person who wanted to serve the relevant documents and an endorsement to the effect that there was refusal. Even the name of the official has not been indicated in the affidavit. That would have been sufficient to comply with the requirements of Section 13 of the Act.” 8. For the stated reasons and the law as quoted above, petition is allowed. Order of detention bearing No.51/DMB/PSA/2017 dated 07.07.2018is unsustainable, as such, quashed. Further custody of the detenue shall be governed in accordance with the orders of the court of competent jurisdiction in connection with criminal case registered against him. 9. Petition succeeds, shall stand, accordingly, disposed of.