JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has challenged Order No.10/DMP/PSA of 2024 dated 02.05.2024 issued by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Poonch, whereby he has been taken into preventive custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. The impugned order of detention has been challenged on the ground that whole of the material on the basis of which grounds of detention have been formulated by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the petitioner, as a result of which he was unable to make a representation against the impugned order of detention. It has been contended that the petitioner was never informed about his right to make a representation against the impugned order of detention. It has been further contended that there has been non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention as the said authority was not aware as to whether or not the challans in respect of the FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention have been filed or whether or not the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in these FIRs. It has been further contended that the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention are stale in nature and that the same have no live and proximate link to the impugned order of detention. It has also been contended that the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention, at worst can lead to a law and order problem, but in no case these activities can lead to disturbance of public order. 3. Respondents have contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit of respondent No.2, the detaining authority. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner was found repeatedly indulging in bovine smuggling and cruelty to the animals. It has been further contended that the activities of the petitioner are detrimental to maintaining public peace and order and these activities have the potential of hurting religious sentiments of minority community residing in Districts of Poonch and Rajouri. Thus, according to the respondents, there was a real apprehension that the activities of the petitioner could cause communal strife in the area. Thus, according to the respondents, there was a real apprehension that the activities of the petitioner could cause communal strife in the area. It has been further contended that the respondents have adhered to all the statutory and constitutional imperatives while executing the impugned order of detention, inasmuch as, whole of the material forming basis of grounds of detention has been furnished to the petitioner and contents thereof have been explained to him in Urdu language. It has been further contended that the detaining authority has applied its mind to the material placed before it and drawn its subjective satisfaction, whereafter the impugned order of detention came to be passed. It has been also contended that this Court cannot undertake judicial review of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Although a number of grounds have been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner for impugning the detention order passed against the petitioner, yet much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel on the ground that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in all the FIRs which find mention in the grounds of detention but this fact has not been brought to the notice of the detaining authority or the said authority has not considered this aspect, which shows non-application of mind on its part. In order to support his aforesaid contention, the petitioner has placed on record copies of bail orders passed in his favour. 6. A perusal of the record would show that as per the grounds of detention, the petitioner was found involved in as many as six FIRs details whereof are given as under:- i) FIR No.33/2017 of Police Station, Mendhar under Sections 341, 323, 504, 147 IPC, ii) FIR No.191/2017 of Police Station, Mendhar under Sections 188 IPC and 3PC Act, iii) FIR No.307/2021 of Police Station, Mendhar under Sections 353, 332, 341 IPC, iv) FIR No.268/2022 of Police Station, Mendhar under Sections 341 & 32 IPC, v) FIR No.75/2023 of Police Station, Surankote under Sections 353, 188 IPC & 11PC Act and vi) FIR No.138/2023 of Police Station, Mendhar under Section 188 IPC & 11PC Act . 7. 7. The copies of bail orders which have been placed on record by the petitioner pertain to FIR No.307/2021 of Police Station Mendhar and FIR No.33/2017 of Police Station Mendhar. The fact that the petitioner has been bailed out in the aforesaid two FIRs does not find mention anywhere in the grounds of detention. The copies of bail orders produced by petitioner clearly show that the said orders have been passed much prior to the passing of impugned order of detention. 8. In a case where a detenue has been released on bail under the orders of the Court prior to the passing of order of detention, it is incumbent upon the sponsoring agency to place before the detaining authority such bail orders or at least mention that the detenue has been bailed out in the cases which form basis of passing the detention order against him. This would enable the detaining authority to reach a proper satisfaction. 9. In the present case, it appears that the bail orders passed in favour of the petitioner in the FIRs, on the basis of which grounds of detention have been formulated, were not placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring agency. This is clear from the record produced by the respondents. Thus, the detaining authority was not aware about the bail orders passed in favour of the petitioner. Granting of bail to the petitioner would have definitely affected the satisfaction of the detaining authority and by not placing these bail orders before the detaining authority and consequent non-consideration of this vital material by the detaining authority, has vitiated the subjective satisfaction of respondent No.2. 10. In the case of ‘ Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244 ’ the Supreme Court has held that when the detaining authority is not even aware whether the bail application of accused was pending, when the order of detention was passed, the order cannot be sustained. 11. In the case of ‘ Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others (1984) 3 SCC 14 ,’ the Supreme Court has held that when a person is enlarged on bail by competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinizing the validity of an order of preventive detention which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the criminal court. 12. State of Bihar and Others (1984) 3 SCC 14 ,’ the Supreme Court has held that when a person is enlarged on bail by competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinizing the validity of an order of preventive detention which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the criminal court. 12. In somewhat similar circumstances, the Supreme Court has, in the cases of ‘ Anant Sakharam Raut & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (1986) 4 SCC 771 and Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 72 ’, held that non-consideration of order granting bail to the detenue renders the order of detention unsustainable in law. 13. As already stated, in the instant case, the detaining authority has not considered the order granting bail to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned detention order has been rendered unsustainable in law. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of detention deserves to be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed . The writ petition is allowed 15. Detention record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.