JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ pleadings and the record therewith. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner acting through his brother whereby the petitioner is seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for earning his release from his preventive detention custody which he alleges to be illegal and unwarranted amounting to violation of his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner came to be ordered to suffer preventive detention by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kishtwar by virtue of an Order No. 4th/DM/K/PSA of 2023 dated 08.06.2023 passed under Section 8(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 by reckoning the petitioner’s alleged reported activities to be harmful/prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and upon his detention to be lodged in District Jail, Kishtwar. 4. In seeking a preventive detention order against the petitioner, the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kishtwar was approached by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kishtwar with a dossier forwarded vide letter No. CS/PSA/2023/6098-6102/C dated 10.05.2023 thereby purportedly putting on record the material which, in the assessment and opinion of the Senior Superintendent of Police Kishtwar, makes out a case for preventive detention order of the petitioner. 5. In the said dossier, the petitioner came to be projected as a habitual bovine smuggler as part of an organized gang operating from Chatroo, Kishtwar and other areas of the District Kishtwar to Kashmir valley. 6. In connection with that, Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kishtwar came to refer to FIR No. 213/2015 under sections 188 RPC read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 registered by the Police Station Kishtwar, FIR No. 14/2016 under sections 452/336/188/147 RPC read with section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 registered by the Police Station Chatroo, FIR No. 47/2016 under sections 188 RPC read with section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 registered by the Police Station Chatroo and FIR No. 19/2019 under sections 188 RPC read with section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 registered by the Police Station Chatroo. 7. 7. By reference to all the aforesaid FIRs, the petitioner was shown to be on bail but undergoing criminal trial before the competent court of law in which regard, Police Report/Challan No. 184/2015 dated 19.12.2016, Police Report/Challan No. 13/2016 dated 28.04.2016, Police Report/Challan No. 38/2016 dated 27.12.2016 and Police Report/Challan No. 19/2019 dated 22.10.2019 were mentioned. 8. The dossier did not cite any fresh incident related to the petitioner’s alleged involvement in linking his bent of indulgences with his past alleged acts of indulgences so as to pose a threat to maintenance of public order. In the dossier, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar did not divulge as to what was the precipitating circumstance which warranted a case for preventive detention of the petitioner by co-relating to his past indulgences in reference to the aforementioned four FIRs and criminal cases undergoing trial against him. 9. The respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kishtwar came to draw grounds of detention for his purported subjective satisfaction proceeding upon the same set of references to the FIRs and the criminal cases related therewith with no latest input from the end of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar so as to reckon the petitioner a very potent risk to maintenance of public order warranting his preventive detention. 10. The preventive detention warrant of the petitioner came to be executed on the petitioner by his arrest on 09.06.2023. 11. The passing of the preventive detention Order No. 4th/DMK/PSA of 2023 dated 08.06.2023 was followed by its approval by the Home Department, Govt. of UT of Jammu and Kashmir vide Govt. Order No. Home/PBV/1282 of 2023 dated 12.06.2023. 12. The petitioner’s preventive detention case was referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion which came to be forwarded vide report dated 12.07.2023 confirming the petitioner’s detention to be justifiable as a result whereof the Govt. came to pass an Order No. Home/PBV/1630 of 2023 dated 18.07.2023 thereby confirming the petitioner’s detention for a period of three months and his lodgement in District Jail, Kishtwar which was followed by Govt. Order No. Home/PBV/2012 of 2023 dated 01.09.2023 extending the period of detention from first installment of three months to an extension of three months further with the place of detainment at District Jail, Kishtwar. 13. Order No. Home/PBV/2012 of 2023 dated 01.09.2023 extending the period of detention from first installment of three months to an extension of three months further with the place of detainment at District Jail, Kishtwar. 13. The petitioner has challenged his preventive detention in the light of the position of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Banka Sneha Sheela Vs. State of Telangans and ors reported in (2021) 9 SCC 415 and Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 terming his preventive detention to be illegal on the enlisted grounds of challenge. The petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Gurdit Singh @ Prince @ Pindi vs. UT of J&K reported in 2023 (5) JKJ [HC] and Umar Jan Vs. UT of J&K & anr reported in 2023 (4) JKJ [HC] 74. 14. The very fact that the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kishtwar made use of the instances of repeated involvement of the petitioner in committing the offences of like nature reckoning from 2016 to 2019 to be a situation for drawing his subjective satisfaction that the petitioner’s personal liberty needs to be curtailed by subjecting him to preventive detention but had nothing to cite any fresh incident/indulgence post 2019 relatable to last FIR No. 19/2019, to comment against the petitioner is reflective of the fact that there was no fresh feed of facts made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar making out a case for preventive detention of the petitioner. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment titled as ‘Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs. The State of Telangana’ reported in (2020) 13 SCC 632 in para 22 has =dealt with the fate of a detention order passed on stale grounds holding that an 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 prevention detention. In observing so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has drawn the core concept of preventive detention not to punish a person for something done by him but to prevent him from doing it. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Ramesh Yadav Vs. In observing so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has drawn the core concept of preventive detention not to punish a person for something done by him but to prevent him from doing it. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Ramesh Yadav Vs. District Magistrate, Etah’ reported in AIR 1986 SC 315 came to censure the passing of a detention order by the detaining authority acting upon an apprehension that in case the detenue was to get released on bail, he would carry on his criminal activities in the area. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India came forward holding that if such was the apprehension at the end of the detaining authority, then legal course open to be availed is to oppose the bail application and in case the bail granted, then to challenge the order granting bail in the higher forum but not to resort to preventive detention mode of detaining the detenue. 17. When examined in the light of the aforesaid position of law, the facts and circumstances of the present case lead this Court to an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner has been punished by mode of preventive detention by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kishtwar on account of petitioner’s alleged involvements in the enlisted FIRs and the criminal cases emerging out of said FIRs pending disposal before the various criminal courts. 18. Thus, this Court holds the preventive detention of the petitioner to be misconceived and unwarranted as the same is without any basis, factual as well as legal, and as such the petitioner deserves to earn restoration of his fundamental right to personal liberty and for that the detention order passed against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 19. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order No. 4th/DM/K/PSA of 2023 dated 08.06.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kishtwar is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith by the Superintendent Jail concerned if not required in any other case.