JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ pleadings and the record therewith. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of an Order No. PITNDPS14 of 2023 dated 08.05.2023 (in short ‘detention order’) passed by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be detained and lodged in District Jail, Kishtwar by reference to exercise of power under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short ‘PITNDPS Act, 1988’) read with SRO 247 dated 27.07.1988. 3. Pursuant to the issuance of this detention order, the petitioner came to be detained on 19.05.2023 by the Detention Order Executing Officer PSI Anil Kumar PID No. EXJ-196712 of Police Station, Kishtwar and came to be lodged in District Jail, Kishtwar. 4. It is the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar who had solicited preventive detention of the petitioner by submission of a dossier forwarded vide letter No. CS/PITNDPS/2023/5733-35/C dated 03.05.2023 wherein the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar came to present the petitioner to be a notorious criminal/drug peddler/habitual smuggler engaged in the sale and purchase of narcotic substances besides engaged in spreading drug addiction in the area. 5. In connection with the petitioner’s alleged indulgences, the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar in his said dossier came to refer to registration of an FIR No. 51/2022 dated 17.6.2022 under Section 8/21/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘NDPS Act, 1985’) registered by the Police Station Chatroo for alleged possession of contraband (Chitta) weighing 18 grams and an FIR No. 87/2023 dated 23.04.2023 under Section 8/21/22 NDPS Act, 1985 registered by the Police Station Kishtwar for alleged possession of contraband (Chitta) weighing 03 grams. 6. In the dossier with respect of FIR No. 51/2022, the petitioner is said to have been subjected to suffer and stand a criminal trial initiated vide Police Challan No. 137/2022 dated 08.09.2022 in which case the petitioner is said to be on bail whereas with respect to second FIR No. 87/2023, the same was said to be under investigation with the petitioner being on bail. 7. 7. It is by reference to the said two FIRs that the petitioner was profiled to be a person whose activities are reckoned to be prejudicial to the object and purpose of PITNDPS Act, 1988 warranting his preventive detention. 8. Acting upon the said dossier of the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu came to formulate grounds of detention for enabling him to draw a subjective satisfaction for ordering the preventive detention of the petitioner. 9. In the grounds of detention, the highlighting features came to be the aforesaid two FIRs in order to generate subjective satisfaction to the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu that the petitioner was to be detained by preventive detention mode as rest is nothing but opinion statement of the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 2. 10. The petitioner in his writ petition has assailed his preventive detention to be illegal and misconceived besides being in breach of procedural safeguards provided and envisaged under PITNDPS, 1988. 11. In the response to the writ petition, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu came forward with the reply from his own end whereas the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar came forward with reply from his respective end. 12. In the reply by the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar filed on 12.09.2023, it came to be disclosed that while the petitioner was on bail in connection with the trial of case with respect to FIR No. 51/2022, he violated the bail conditions by indulging in the second time alleged commission of offence for which FIR No. 87/2023 came to be registered by the Police Station, Kishtwar. With respect to the second FIR No. 87/2023, it came to be disclosed that after passing of detention order, a Police Report/Challan No. 101/2023 dated 08.09.2023 came to be presented before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishtwar. In connection with both the criminal cases, the petitioner is admitted to be on bail prior to the preparation of the dossier against him. 13. In connection with both the criminal cases, the petitioner is admitted to be on bail prior to the preparation of the dossier against him. 13. In the reply, the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar has nowhere disclosed about the fact that in case the petitioner had indulged in breach of conditions imposed with respect to grant of bail in his favour in connection with FIR No. 51/2022 then why the court concerned was not approached by the police and the prosecution seeking cancellation of bail in favour of the petitioner vis-à-vis FIR No. 51/2022 and further as to why the petitioner’s alleged breach of conditions of bail in connection with FIR No. 51/2022 was not cited as a ground of objection to oppose the grant of bail in his favour with respect to FIR No. 87/2023 thereby meaning that the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar was not coming forward with true and full disclosure of facts in his dossier concerning the petitioner. 14. The respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in his reply has not spelled out that at his end upon being apprised about the fact that the petitioner has been bailed out in the aforesaid two FIRs, then why the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar has not disclosed the true text and context of bail orders passed by the Courts as to upon which terms and conditions the petitioner came to be enlarged on bail in connection with the aforesaid two FIRs. 15. 15. When this Court examines the grounds of detention framed by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in juxta position to the dossier served narrative by the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar, the salient aspect which comes forth is that both are replica image of each other in the sense that whatever was fed by the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar was literally taken down as it is by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu without exercising any independent application of mind at his end in the manner as observed by this Court in the context of bail conditions of the petitioner and why the police and prosecution failed to oppose the petitioner’s bail plea in the second FIR when in the first FIR the petitioner had earned the bail on the purported condition not to indulge in repeat of alleged commission of offence under NDPS Act, 1985. 16. Thus, what comes out is that the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar and the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu have come to deliver a punitive sentence upon the petitioner through preventive detention mode of jurisdiction by literally holding the petitioner guilty of commission of offences charged against him but without a judgment of conviction coming forward from the criminal court of law. By the time, the criminal court comes forward with its final judgment, the petitioner was intended to be taken behind the bars by said two respondents acting as extra-court authority. 17. Thus, this Court reckons that the preventive detention jurisdiction has been resorted to more as a substitute mode of punishment upon the petitioner by the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar and the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. 18. 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 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. 19. In the present case, the mind set on the part of the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar seems to be afflicted with the same thought process of dealing with the petitioner by taking pretext of his second time involvement resulting in registration of FIR No. 87/2023. 20. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vikram Sharma’s submission is perhaps not unfounded that a District Magistrate and a Senior Superintendent of Police being the administrators and guardians of the criminal administration of justice in a district, in order to cover up their default in opposing bail application of accused person, to agitate bail granted before higher court and to seek cancellation of bail on account of alleged repeat indulgence of the accused in offence, resort to an easy mode of dossier framing for preventive detention of a person in the process leaving the fundamental right to personal liberty of a person seriously hit and deprived just by activation of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority thereby rendering, seeking and passing of a preventive detention order against a person a matter of routine and run of the mill. 21. 21. The preventive detention of the petitioner is further vitiated with a serious lacuna attending passing of the detention order when the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in his communication No. 601/RA/Detention/21/ CC-7183995 dated 08.05.2023 addressed to the petitioner apprising him about passing of detention order against him, failed to make the petitioner aware and apprised of his right to make a representation against his preventive detention to the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu himself, although in the said communication, the petitioner was apprised to make a representation against his preventive detention to the Government. 22. The omission on the part of the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu to apprise the petitioner about his right to make a representation to the detention order making/passing authority i.e., the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu is antithesis to the position of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India with regard to the right of the detenue to make a representation not only to the Government but also to the detention order making/passing authority which, in the present case, is the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. 23. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order No. PITNDPS 14 of 2023 dated 08.05.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith by the Superintendent Jail concerned if not required in any other case. 24. Disposed of accordingly.