JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The petitioner Smt. Prem Kanwar being the wife of Shri Surendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as the detenue for short) has approached this Court for assailing the order dated 04.06.2018 (Annex.3) whereby the detenue was placed under detention for a period of one year from the date of his initial arrest by resorting to the provisions of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti- Social Activities Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006 for short). 2. Facts in brief are that the detenue is alleged to be a history-sheeter residing in the village Novi P.S. Sumerpur, District Pali. An earlier order of detention dated 03.02.2012 came to be passed against the detenue by the learned District Magistrate, Pali with reference to numerous criminal cases registered against him. The detenue challenged the said order of detention passed against him through his brother Jaspal Singh by filing D.B. Writ (Habeas Corpus) Petition No. 5118/2012 ( Jaspal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ) which was decided by Honble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27.8.2012 holding that the notification authorizing the District Magistrates to exercise powers under the Act were issued by the State Government without being satisfied that such powers should be conferred upon the District Magistrates concerned under Section 3(1) of the Act of 2006. Accordingly, the order of detention passed against the detenue Shri Surendra Singh was quashed vide judgment dated 27.8.2012. It appears that after the order of detention was quashed, the detenue was again found indulged in criminal activities and no sooner, he was released on bail, the District Magistrate, Pali proceeded to pass a fresh order of detention dated 3.5.2018 against the detenue with reference to the cases previously registered against him and in addition thereto, some more cases which came to be registered against him in the intervening period. The detention was sponsored by the Superintendent of Police, Pali and the District Magistrate, Pali, expressing satisfaction with the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police, Pali, proceeded to pass the order dated 03.05.2018 (Annex.2) in exercise of the powers under Section 3 (1) (2) of the Act of 2006 whereby the detenue was directed to be detained at Central Jail, Jodhpur. The matter of the detenue was placed before the advisory board who recommended affirmation of the detention order and pursuant thereto, the State Government confirmed the detention of the detenue for a period of one year from the date of his detention vide order dated 04.06.2018 (Annex.3). The petitioner, being the wife of the detenue Shri Surendra Singh has approached this Court by way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the order of detention passed against the detenue. 3. Shri N.K. Bohra, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the detention of the detenue Surendra Singh vide order of detention dated 03.05.2018 (Annex.2) confirmed vide order dated 04.06.2018 (Annex.3) is grossly illegal, arbitrary and perverse and rather amounts to a contempt of this Courts Judgment dated 27.08.2012 passed in the earlier round of detention. He submitted that the earlier detention order issued against the detenue virtually on the same grounds which form the basis of the present detention order, was quashed by the High Court by exercising its high prerogative writ jurisdiction and thus, it was highly arbitrary and highhanded for the detaining authority to have used the very same grounds for passing a fresh order of detention against the detenue. He further urged that the order of detention suffers from gross non- application of mind to material facts inasmuch as the detaining authority failed to consider the important circumstance that the detenue was in custody for a period of almost three years before the detention order came to be issued. There was no material to show that during this period of three years, the detenue acted in any manner which could be considered as being prejudicial to public order. He further urged that the requisite satisfaction in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 2006 is totally lacking from the order of detention and as such, the same is liable to be struck down. 4. Per contra, Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Bohra. He further urged that the requisite satisfaction in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 2006 is totally lacking from the order of detention and as such, the same is liable to be struck down. 4. Per contra, Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Bohra. He urged that after the previous detention order issued against the detenue had been quashed, he was again found indulged in numerous criminal activities, most of which were causing serious threat to public order and as such, the detaining authority was absolutely justified in passing the fresh order of detention against the detenue so as to curb his prejudicial activities and to save the public at large from the anti-social activities of the detenue. He further contended that the detaining authority, while passing the fresh order of detention, duly applied its mind to the fact that the detenue was in custody for a period of 3 years after quashing of the previous order of detention and that the fresh order of detention was necessitated because of the fresh criminal activities of the detenue which in themselves constitute independent grounds so as to justify issuance of a fresh order of detention. In this regard, he referred to Section 6 of the Act of 2006 and implored the Court to dismiss the habeas corpus petition as being devoid of merit. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. The most significant and forceful contention of Shri Bohra for assailing the order of detention was that the detenue had been previously detained by the detaining authority under the provisions of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 mostly on common grounds which constitute the foundation of the present order of detention and that while passing the fresh order of detention, virtually the same grounds were relied upon by the detaining authority without even adverting to the significant fact that the previous detention order was quashed by the High Court in the exercise of its high prerogative writ jurisdiction. 7. For appreciating this argument, we have perused the grounds of detention used to detain the detenue in the previous round as well as the present set of grounds of detention. 7. For appreciating this argument, we have perused the grounds of detention used to detain the detenue in the previous round as well as the present set of grounds of detention. We find that other than a few fresh criminal cases, registered in the intervening period, most of the incidents which have been relied upon by the detaining authority for passing the order of detention are common in both the detention orders. The most striking feature of the matter is that while passing the fresh order of detention, the detaining authority failed to take into account and totally ignored the fact that the previous order of detention issued against the detenue on mostly common grounds was quashed by the High Court. The total ignorance shown by the detaining authority to this material fact reflects gross non-application of mind while passing the fresh order of detention and rather amounts to showing total disrespect to the High Courts judgment dated 27.8.2012. Notwithstanding that, we feel that the contention advanced by learned Govt. Advocate that the detention order is valid as it deemed to have been passed individually on each ground as the same are severable, has to be considered in light of the plain language of Section 6 of the Act of 2006 which reads thus: " 6. Grounds of detention serverable. - Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under Section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and according.- (a) Such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are.- (i) Vague, (ii) non-existent, (iii) not-relevant, (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever, and it is not, therefore, possible to hold that the State Government or the authorized officer making such order would have been satisfied as provided in Section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention. (b) the State Government or the authorized officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said section after being satisfied as provided in that section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds." 8. (b) the State Government or the authorized officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said section after being satisfied as provided in that section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds." 8. The direct implication of this provision would be that the earlier set of grounds of detention on which, the detenue was detained, would have to be eschewed (as the order passed on the basis thereof was quashed by the High Court) from consideration and it would have to be assumed that the fresh detention was passed on the remaining grounds. For this purpose, we have examined the grounds of detention formulated by the detaining authority for detaining the detenue Surendra Singh afresh. For this purpose, we have examined the grounds of detention formulated by the detaining authority for detaining the detenue Surendra Singh afresh. In addition to the incidents which were relied upon by the detaining authority for passing the previous order of detention, the following instances were set out in the grounds so as to justify the order of detention:- ^^uohure o"kZ 2017 esa ntZ vfHk;ksx dk fooj.k %& eqŒuŒ129@4-4-2017 /kkjk 384 HkkŒnŒlaŒ iqfyl Fkkuk lqesjiqj ÁkFkhZ deys'k dqekj vxzoky fuoklh lqesjiqj us fyf[kr fjiksVZ is'k dh fd eqyfte lqjsUæflag us dsUæh; dkjkx`g tks/kiqj ls iSlksa dh voS/k olwyh ds fy, ÁkFkhZ ds eksckbZy uEcj 7742983031 ij vius eksckbZy uEcj 7822965347 ls tku ls ekjus dh /kefd;k nsus ij eqŒuŒ 129] 4-4-2017 /kkjk 384 HkkŒnŒlaŒ iqfyl Fkkuk lqesjiqj esa ntZ dj ckn vuqla/kku urhtk pkyku pktZ'khV uEcj 104 rkjh[k 5-6-2017 /kkjk 384] 120ch HkkŒnŒlaŒ esa is'k fd;k x;k tks tSj Vk;y py jgk gSA iqfyl v/kh{kd] ikyh }kjk mijksDr rF;ksa ds leFkZu esa lqlaxr fjdkMZ miyC/k djok;k x;kA iqfyl v/kh{kd] ikyh }kjk voxr djk;s x;s mijksDr rF;ksa ls ;g Áekf.kr gS fd mDr vijk/kh dh gjdrksa ls yksd 'kkfUr ,oa lekt dh O;oLFkk esa Hkkjh O;o/kku mRiUu gks jgk gSA vijk/kh ds fo:) rhu vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e ds Ádj.k ntZ gksdj 3 esa fopkj.k py jgk gS ;g vijk/kh 'kjkc ekfQ;k gSA Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds v/;k; 16] 17 ds v/khu Ádj.k ntZ gksdj pkyku gq;s gS lkFk gh vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds Hkh Ádj.k ntZ gq;s gS ,sls O;fDr dk Lora= jguk vke turk ds fy;s [krjukd gS bldh vijk/kh xfrfof/k;ksa dks jksdus ds fy;s lkekU; dkuwu ds rgr dh xbZ dk;Zokfg;ka foQy gks jgh gSA vijk/kh ds fo:) vf/kdka'kr gR;k] m}kiu] tcju olwyh] >xMk] ekjihV] gR;k dk Á;kl] ljdkjh deZpkfj;ksa ls ekjihV djuk] iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa gksrs gq, iqfyl xkMZ ij Qk;j dj Qjkj gks tkuk ,oa tsy esa cUn gksrs gq, Hkh voS/k olwyh ds fy;s O;kikjh dks /kedkuk vkfn tSls vijk/kksa esa ekeysa py jgs gSA bu vijk/kksa dk ckj&ckj lkoZtfud LFkkuksa ij djus ls bl O;fDr dk vketu esa ,slk Hk; ,oa vkrad gks x;k gS fd vke vkneh blds fo:) Ádj.k ntZ djokus ;k U;k;ky; esa xokgh nsus ls drjkrs gS mDr lqjsUæflag iq= Hkokuhflag cgqr [krjukd Áo`fr dk balku gS] bldh xfrfof/k;ka pje ij gS tks /kkjk 2&x jktLFkku lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdyki vf/kfu;e jktiklk 2006 ds varxZr ifjHkkf"kr d`R; dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS] mDr vijk/kh us vkl&ikl ds cnek'kksa dh xSax cuk j[kh gS ;g Lo;a xSax dk ljxuk gS blds vU; lkFkh Hkh blds funsZ'ku esa cS[kkSQ gksdj vijk/k djrs jgrs gSA ftlls vke vkneh Hk;xzLr gS vijk/kh ds vf/kdka'k vijkf/kd Ádj.kksa esa xqIr rkSj ij ihfM+rksa dks Mjk&/kedkdj jkthukek djok fn;k tkrk gS ftlls ;g vijk/kh cjh gks pqdk gS fQj Hkh dbZ eqdneksa esa ltk gqbZ gSA iqfyl v/kh{kd] ikyh ds i= fnukad 23-11-2017 }kjk voxr djok;k x;k gS fd mDr gkMZdksj vijk/kh dh xfrfof/k;ka tsy ls Hkh fujUrj tkjh gS lkFk gh mDr vijk/kh tekur gksrs gh ldqur ls Hkkx tk;sxk D;ksafd iwoZ esa fnukad 25-08-2015 dks pkykuh xkMZ fljksgh dh fgjklr ls ckn is'kh fljksgh tkrs le; fMeySa.M gksVy lk.Msjko ls vkxs lqesjiqj dh rjQ blds iqjkus lkfFk;ksa }kjk pkykuh xkMZ ij Qk;fjax dj eqyfte lqjsUæflag dks Hkxkdj ys x;sA vHkh gky esa iqfyl v/kh{kd ikyh ds ik=kad ikyh@,eŒvksŒchŒ@jktiklk@17@1550 fnuakd 01-05-2018 }kjk voxr djk;k x;k gS fd vijk/kh ds fo:) 30-04-2018 lEcfU/kr iqfyl Fkkus esa jiV ntZ gqbZ gS ftlls Kkr gksrk gS fd vijk/kh ls vke tu@ihfMr O;fDr;ksa esa Hk; gS] mlds fo:) ntZ Ádj.kksa esa xokgksa dks i{kæksgh djus dk [krjk gSA blls ;g Áekf.kr gS fd vijk/kh dh vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ka orZeku esa cjdjkj gSA** 9. Shri Bohra has placed on record copies of judgments passed in different cases registered against the detenue wherein he was acquitted by competent courts of jurisdiction, the details whereof are mentioned hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:- S. No. Cr. Case No. Judgment Dated By the Court 1 Sessions Case No. 10/2016 09.10.2017 Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act Cases, Sirohi. 2 Cr. Case No. 120/2012 21.10.2013 ACJM, Sumerpur, Pali. 3 Cr. Case No. 626/2014 13.11.2017 ACJM, Sumerpur, Pali. 4 Sessions Case No. 28/2005 15.09.2005 Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Act Cases, Pali. 5 Cr. Case No. 948/2008 01.07.2016 Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur 6 Sessions Case No. 75/2008 11.05.2016 Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act Cases, Pali. 10. Manifestly, the incidents of the year 2014 (F.I.R. No. 346/2014) & 2015 (F.I.R. No. 8/2015 & 116/2015) have no proximity with the instant detention order which came to be passed in the Year 2018 and the same have to be termed as stale grounds. Furthermore, it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the detenue was in custody in relation to the F.I.R. No. 110/2015 and was released on bail in the said case just before the passing of the fresh order of detention after being incarcerated in prison for almost three years. The detenue was released from custody in December 2017. From a bare perusal of the grounds of detention, it becomes amply clear that the detaining authority failed to advert to the important circumstance that the detenue was in custody for a prolonged period of three years, just before the order of detention came to be passed against him. From amongst the three fresh incidents (referred to supra) which were relied upon by the detaining authority and even most of the earlier instances mentioned in the grounds of detention, the detenue has been acquitted in numerous of these cases as is evident from the pleadings and the documents placed on record. The competent court has acquitted the detenue in connection with the case registered in furtherance of F.I.R. No. 8/2015 vide judgment dated 9.10.2017. From a perusal of the grounds of detention, it becomes clear that the detaining authority failed to take into account the factum of acquittal of the detenue in these cases and acting in a totally mechanical manner, utilized these instances as grounds for detaining the detenue which shows a total non-application of mind by the detaining authority. From a perusal of the grounds of detention, it becomes clear that the detaining authority failed to take into account the factum of acquittal of the detenue in these cases and acting in a totally mechanical manner, utilized these instances as grounds for detaining the detenue which shows a total non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Needless to say that any criminal case in which the detenue has been acquitted can also be utilized for passing an order of detention under the Act of 2006, but in such a circumstance, it is imperative for the detaining authority to consider the factum of acquittal of the detenue and assign a reason as to why, despite that, the incident is being used as a ground for passing the order of detention. If the order of detention is passed without referring to the factum of acquittal, then manifestly the same would be tainted by the vice of gross non- application of mind. Reference in this regard may be had to the Honble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Ibrahim Bachu Bafan v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in AIR 1985 SC 697 and Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 1990 AIR 1272 . 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that the detaining authority acted with gross indifference to material facts and even went to the extent of ignoring the High Courts order quashing the order of detention passed against the detenue and utilized most of the earlier grounds for passing the fresh order of detention and thus, the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary and suffers from total non application of mind to significant facts. Furthermore, factum of acquittal of the detenue even in most of the fresh instances relied upon as grounds to detain the detenue was also not considered by the detaining authority in the right perspective and therefore also, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned order of detention is liable to be struck down as having been passed without applying mind to the material circumstances/orders/judgments and hence, the same cannot be sustained. 12. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition deserves acceptance and is hereby allowed. 12. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition deserves acceptance and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 3.5.2018 (Annex.2) and 4.6.2018 (Annex.3) whereby the detenue Surendra Singh S/o Bhawani Singh was placed under detention is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is in custody. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.