JUDGMENT 1. By medium of this petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.12/DMB/PSA/2021 dated 18.10.2021, passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla (the detaining authority) whereby one Riyaz Khaliq Parray S/O Abdul Khaliq Parray R/o Watergam Rafiabad Tehsil Watergam District Baramulla, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The order is, purportedly, passed by the detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (a) of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. 2. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner on various grounds but the main grounds on which much stress has been laid during the course of arguments are: (I) That previously the detenue was placed under preventive detention pursuant to detention order bearing No.85/DMB/PSA/2020 dated 17.02.2020. The said order has been quashed by this Court but without there being any fresh material or grounds, the impugned detention order has been passed by the detaining authority; (II) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the detenue has already been admitted to bail in FIR No.61/2019 but this fact has nowhere been mentioned in the grounds of detention. 3. On being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein it is submitted that the detention was necessitated because of involvement of the detenue in very serious offences against the State. That the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further claimed in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. That the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198 . 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. In the earlier petition i.e. WP(Crl) No.45/2020, the petitioner had challenged detention order No. 85/DMB/PSA/2020 dated 17.02.2020. The respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198 . 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. In the earlier petition i.e. WP(Crl) No.45/2020, the petitioner had challenged detention order No. 85/DMB/PSA/2020 dated 17.02.2020. The said detention order bears reference to FIR No.61/2019 for offences under Section 7/25 Arms Act, 18 and 39 of ULA(P) Act of Police Station, Dangiwacha, and the same was made basis for passing of the detention order. In the instant case also, the grounds of detention bear reference to the same FIR. There was no fresh material with regard to any fresh activity of the detenue available with the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. 6. As already noted, the earlier detention order bearing No. 85/DMB/PSA/2020 dated 17.02.2020 was quashed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 27.04.2021. The detaining authority has passed the impugned detention order by taking resort to similar grounds and same material that was subject matter of earlier detention orders. The said course of action is not legally open to the detaining authority. It is a settled proposition of law that fresh order of detention cannot be passed on the same set of allegations/grounds that have been quashed by the Court. 7. The Supreme Court has, in the case of Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar Vs. N. L. Kalna and others, (1989) 2 SCC 318 , while dealing with a similar question, observed as under: '12. It emerges from the above authoritative judicial pronouncements that even if the order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention, there must be fresh facts for passing a subsequent order. A fortiori when a detention order is quashed by the Court issuing a high prerogative writ like habeas corpus or certiorari, the grounds of the said order should not be taken into consideration either as a whole or in part even along with the fresh grounds of detention for drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh order because once the Court strikes down an earlier order by issuing rule, it nullifies the entire order. 8. Again in the case of Jahangir Khan Fazal Khan Pathan Vs. 8. Again in the case of Jahangir Khan Fazal Khan Pathan Vs. The Police Commissioner, Ahmadabad and another, (1989) 3 SCC 590 , the Supreme Court has held as under: '......It is, therefore, clear that an order of detention cannot be made after considering the previous grounds of detention when the same had been quashed by the Court, and if such previous grounds of detention are taken into consideration while forming the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in making a detention order, the order of detention will be vitiated. It is of no consequence if the further fresh facts disclosed in the grounds of the impugned detention order have been considered.' 9. From the aforesaid enunciation of law on the subject, it is clear that unless there are fresh grounds of detention, a person cannot be put under preventive detention on the basis of the grounds of detention that have formed basis of an earlier detention order that has been quashed by a Court. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the afore cited two cases squarely applies to the facts of the instant case and, therefore, the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 10. The second ground urged by the petitioner is that the impugned detention order suffers from non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, inasmuch as the grounds of detention do not bear any reference to the fact that the petitioner had been admitted to bail in FIR No.161/2019 in terms of order dated 26.02.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (TADA/POTA), Srinagar. A copy of the docket issued by the said Court in this regard has been placed on record by the petitioner. The non-mentioning of this important fact in the grounds of detention exhibits non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. This shows that the detaining authority has not meticulously examined the record while passing the impugned order of detention which renders the same unsustainable in law. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 137 . 11. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 137 . 11. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed. A direction is issued to the respondents to release the detenue from the preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case. 12. The record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.