JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) S.G.Chattopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr.Rajib Saha, learned counsel appearing for the detenue as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and 8. Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned ASG has appeared for the Union of India and submits that the Union of India received copy of the detention order in due course. 2. The detenue has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act, in short) by the order dated 09.09.2021 under No.F.15(9)- PD/2021(P-i)/2543 [Annexure-1 to this petition] on the purported grounds of nefarious activities in trafficking of NDPS and forming illegal business ring for proliferation of such activities. This apart, as it appears from the impugned order dated 09.09.2021, several pending criminal cases were considered by the Detaining Authority along with the report of the Director General of Police for forming opinion for detention. The cases which were thus considered by the detaining authority are as under: (i) Belonia P.S. Case No.2019 BLN 001 dated 01.01.2019 under Sections 22(b), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act 1985 and Sections 18 and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. (ii) A.D.Nagar P.S. Case No.2019 ADN 127 dated 31.10.2019 under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Petitioner Smt. Gita Biswas is the mother of the detenue. According to the petitioner, all on a sudden on 22.09.2021 her son Palash Biswas was called to Belonia Police Station. When he appeared at the Police Station, the impugned detention order was served on him and he was taken into custody. Since then he is under preventive detention. The detenue had submitted a representation dated 23.11.2021 which was received by the Detaining Authority on 29.11.2021. The detenue claimed that he was falsely implicated in the cases which were considered by the Detaining Authority for issuing the detention order. He categorically denied his involvement in trafficking of NDPS and started that in both the cases he was granted bail by the Trial court. The detenue has also asserted in his written representation that in both the cases charge sheets have been laid by the investigating agency and the cases are pending for trial before the special court. He has claimed that he has been suffering from serious ailment. The detenue has also asserted in his written representation that in both the cases charge sheets have been laid by the investigating agency and the cases are pending for trial before the special court. He has claimed that he has been suffering from serious ailment. Moreover, he being the only bread winner of his family, his family members consisting of his mother, wife and children would suffer from serious hardship as a result of his detention. 4. In the course of arguments, we have been taken through the official records maintained by the Detaining Authority. It appears that in due course the materials were placed before the Advisory Board which included the grounds for detention and other documents. The Advisory Board sent its report dated 04.12.2021 after examination of the records and documents placed before it. It is apparent from the record that the Board was convinced that the detenue was indulging in nefarious activities like illicit trafficking of NDPS and further, there was no sign of deterrence. Therefore, his preventive detention was wholly justified. On considering the said report, the Detaining Authority passed the final order dated 09.12.2021 under Section 9 of the PIT NDPS Act confirming the impugned detention order dated 09.09.2021 for a period of 01 year from the date of detention i.e. from 21.09.2021. 5. The detenue has challenged the impugned order dated 09.09.2021 as well as the final order dated 09.12.2021. As it appears to us, challenge to the detention order is mainly structured on the grounds that the detenue was not supplied with the copies of the essential documents along with the impugned detention order. He was not even given a copy of the report of the DGP proposing his preventive detention as a result of which he could not submit any effective representation against the detention order which infringed his rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 6. Mr.Rajib Saha, learned counsel appearing for the detenue has contended that mere communication of the detention order to the detenue is not enough. Counsel contends that in view of the safeguards provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, it is mandatory for the Detaining Authority to communicate to the detenue the grounds on which the detention order has been made so as to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Counsel contends that in view of the safeguards provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, it is mandatory for the Detaining Authority to communicate to the detenue the grounds on which the detention order has been made so as to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Counsel contends that due to non communication of the grounds of detention to the detenue and non service of the essential documents including the report of the DGP, the right of the detenue to submit an effective representation against the detention order has been reduced into futility. Counsel further contends that it is apparent that the Detaining Authority did not apply its mind to the basic facts and circumstances of the case to arrive at a subjective satisfaction about the need of issuing the preventive detention order. According to Mr.Saha, learned counsel, in Belonia P.S. case No.001 of 2019, the detenue was released on bail by the trial court on 05.01.2019 and in A.D. Nagar P.S. case No.127 of 2019 he was released on bail by the learned trial judge on 07.03.2020 by a detailed order. The Detaining Authority did not even refer to those orders granting bail to the detenue in the impugned detention order and did not justify as to why Detaining Authority felt it necessary to issue the preventive detention order after the detenue was granted bail. Counsel contends that in both the cases charge sheets have been laid and the detenue is ready to face trial. This apart, counsel has also contended that the detenue has been suffering from colorectal cancer and he requires appropriate treatment outside the prison. Counsel therefore, urges the court for release of the detenue. 7. Despite service of notice, the state respondents did not submit any written reply. However, learned public prosecutor, during the hearing of the case, argued that in view of the repeated involvement of the detenue in NDPS offences, the Detaining Authority was apprehending that he would continue to commit similar kinds of offences unless he was prevented by an order of preventive detention. Counsel supports the impugned detention order and urges the court for rejection of the petition. 8. Counsel supports the impugned detention order and urges the court for rejection of the petition. 8. When it was brought to our notice that the accused was suffering from colorectal cancer we directed the Medical Superintendent of Atal Bihari Vajpayee Regional Cancer Center to constitute an expert team and submit a written report to this court vide our order dated 31.05.2022 which reads as under: 'Dr. Nirmalendu Das, Medical Officer-in- Charge, Kendriya Sansodhanagar, Bishalgarh was present to assist the Court in understating the medical status of the detenue. He submits from records that the detenue is suffering from cancer of the rectum and not pancreatic cancer as claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Dr. Nirmalendu Das also states that the detenue is undergoing radiotherapy and chemotherapy as available from the medical history recorded by him and the next date fixed for his further treatment is 03.06.2022. The Medical Superintendent of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Regional Cancer Centre, Agartala is directed to constitute an expert team to evaluate and give their prognosis of the future treatment that the detenue may require. Such report be made available to this Court latest by 21.06.2022 in a sealed cover. Counter-affidavit also be filed in the meantime. List this matter on 21.06.2022.' 9. Pursuant to the said order, a report has been submitted in sealed cover before this court which has confirmed the fact that detenue has been suffering from colorectal cancer and the experts have given their prognosis of the future treatment that the detenue may require after appropriate evaluation of his illness. We do not feel it necessary to make a detailed discussion of the matter for the purpose of consideration of this petition. 10. We have considered the whole facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the counsel representing the parties. [11] We are not inclined to accept the justification given by the Detaining Authority that the mere reference to the pending NDPS cases against the detenue which are 2-3 years old should be considered as relevant and proximate grounds of his detention. In the case of SAMA ARUNA VERSUS STATE OF TELENGANA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018) 12 SCC 150 , the apex court has succinctly held that remote and stale incidents would have no relevance for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenue must be detained. In the case of SAMA ARUNA VERSUS STATE OF TELENGANA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018) 12 SCC 150 , the apex court has succinctly held that remote and stale incidents would have no relevance for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenue must be detained. Observation of the apex court in paragraph 17 of the judgment reads as under: '17.We are, therefore, satisfied that the aforesaid detention order was passed on grounds which are stale and which could not have been considered as relevant for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu must be detained. The detention order must be based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behavior of a person based on his past conduct in light of the surrounding circumstances. The live and proximate link that must exist between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him must be taken to have been snapped in this case. A detention order which is founded on stale incidents, must be regarded as an order of punishment for a crime, passed without a trial, though purporting to be an order of preventive detention. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. See G. Reddeiah v. State of A. P. and, and P.U. Iqbal v. Union of India.' 12. In the instant case, apparently the NDPS cases which have been considered by the Detaining Authority for arriving at the subjective satisfaction about the need of the preventive detention of the detenue date back to 01.01.2019 and 31.10.2019 and as such, both the cases are 2-3 years old and in our considered view the detenue should not have been detained preventively by taking such stale incidents into account particularly when the detenue was released on bail in both these cases. If it was apprehended by the detaining authority that the detenue, if released on bail, would again carry on the nefarious activities in trafficking NDPS cases, they could have challenged the bail orders in higher forum. Obviously there is no challenge to those bail orders. 13. If it was apprehended by the detaining authority that the detenue, if released on bail, would again carry on the nefarious activities in trafficking NDPS cases, they could have challenged the bail orders in higher forum. Obviously there is no challenge to those bail orders. 13. Therefore, in view of the given facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sama Aruna(supra), we allow this petition and set aside the aforesaid detention order. The detenue be released forthwith unless he is entangled in any other case. 14. Communicate this order to the Superintendent of jail where the detenue is presently detained. 15 In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. Department's file be sent back through learned PP.