JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant petition, petitioner seeks quashment of order bearing No. 24/DMB/PSA/24 dated 12.04.2024, hereinafter for short referred to as impugned order, passed by the respondent No. 1, District Magistrate Baramulla, by virtue of which the son of the petitioner, Suhail Ahmad Sheikh S/O Ghulam Ahmad Sheikh R/O Kunzer Baramulla, for short detenue, has been detained under the provisions of Public Safety Act. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The detenue, by the impugned order, has been put under preventive detention by respondent No. 1 for maintaining the public order. The grounds taken in support of such detention by the detaining authority find its origin in FIR Nos. 66/2016, 78/2016, & 153/2022 of Police Station Kunzer, Baramulla registered against the detenue for the commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 336, 307 RPC; 147, 148, 149, 336, 332, 407, 307 RPC; and 341, 323 RPC respectively. 3. Pursuant to the issuance of the impugned order, the detenue has been apprehended and lodged in district jail Udhampur. The challenge to the impugned order is primarily made on the grounds that the two FIRs, mention whereof has been made in the impugned order, are of the year 2016 and in one of such cases, the detenue has been acquitted of all the charges by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Baramulla, in terms of Judgment dated 31.12.2022; the second FIR of 2016 has been registered only after a gap of sixteen days subsequent to his acquittal which is also pending trial before the competent Court of jurisdiction. The 3 rd FIR of the year 2022 registered by the Police Station Kunzer under and in terms of Sections 341 and 323 IPC pertain to a private dispute and is in no way connected with the maintenance of public order as would the alleged offences itself indicate. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that the detenue has been falsely implicated in all these FIRs and there was no ground for the detaining authority to detain the detenue under preventive detention in the year 2024 for the acts alleged to have been committed by the detenue in the year 2016 or in the year 2022. The impugned order has been passed mechanically and in a non-perfunctory manner in total disregard of the facts and law. 5. The impugned order has been passed mechanically and in a non-perfunctory manner in total disregard of the facts and law. 5. The impugned detention order is an outcome of total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and in total disregard of the Judgment dated 31.12.2022 passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Baramulla acquitting the detenue of all the charges leveled against him in case FIR No. 66/2016 of Police Station Kunzer and also in violation of the mandate of various pronouncements of the Apex Court on the subject. The impugned order suffers from the vice of having been passed ultra vires the power and authority vested by the law in the Detaining Authority and as a sequel thereto the impugned order is non-est in law being legally unsustainable. 6. The vagueness of the impugned order prevented the detenue from making an effective representation against it violating thereby his constitutional rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available including the detention record produced by the learned Government Counsel. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order is an outcome of non application of mind on the part of Detaining Authority for having issued it in violation of the laws and the procedure applicable inasmuch as the basis of the impugned order are unfounded as the two FIRs of the year 2016 could not have led the Detaining Authority to the subjective satisfaction of the detenue being a threat to the public order after a period of eight years and the 3 rd FIR of the year 2022 could not have also led the Detaining Authority to such satisfaction as the same has been registered in pursuance to a private dispute for the commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections 341 and 323 IPC. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel referred to and relied upon the judgments delivered by the Apex Court in case titled ‘ Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another reported as (2011 ) 5 SCC 244’ and the Judgment of this Court passed in case titled ‘ Mehraj-u-din Khura Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anothe r’ bearing HCP No. 236/2024 decided on 17.12.2024. 9. State of Tamil Nadu and Another reported as (2011 ) 5 SCC 244’ and the Judgment of this Court passed in case titled ‘ Mehraj-u-din Khura Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anothe r’ bearing HCP No. 236/2024 decided on 17.12.2024. 9. On the other hand, the learned Government Counsel supported the impugned order by submitting that the impugned order has been issued by observing all legal formalities and the rule of law in all possible ways. The detenue has been a threat to the public order for having been involved in as many as three FIRs of Police Station, Kunzer and the Detaining Authority after being satisfied that the substantive law was not sufficient to deter the detenue and prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order detained him in terms of the impugned order. 10. Considered the submissions made. 11. The perusal of the impugned order makes it explicit that the detenue has been ordered to be kept in preventive detention in terms of the impugned order for his alleged involvement in FIR Nos. 66/2016, 78/2016, 153/2022 of Police Station Kunzer, Baramulla for the commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 336, 307 RPC; 147, 148, 149, 336, 332, 407, 307 RPC; and 341 & 323 RPC respectively. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in saying that the activities alleged against the detenue, on the basis whereof his preventive detention has been ordered, pertain to and relate to the year 2016 i.e. eight years before the preventive detention was ordered thereby reflecting emphatically that there is no proximity whatsoever between the alleged activities of the detenue and the impugned order as no fresh activity has been alleged anywhere against the detenue. 13. The impugned order further appears to be vague for the reason that it mentions and makes it a ground to refer to an FIR registered against the detenue again in the year 2016 in which the detenue has earned a Judgment in the year 2022 itself acquitting him of all the charges leveled against him. 13. The impugned order further appears to be vague for the reason that it mentions and makes it a ground to refer to an FIR registered against the detenue again in the year 2016 in which the detenue has earned a Judgment in the year 2022 itself acquitting him of all the charges leveled against him. In this regard, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner carries weight when he submits that Detaining Authority has not applied its mind to the material placed before it seeking preventive detention of the detenue as the detenue could not have been held accountable and ordered to be kept in preventive detention in respect of the case in which he has earned a Judgment on a full dressed trial from the competent Court of jurisdiction. 14. It does not also transpire from the detention record as to how the detenue was taken as a threat to the public order on the basis of an FIR which had been registered against the detenue for his involvement in a private dispute. 15. The non-application of the mind on the part of the detaining authority as discussed hereinbefore is writ large and such non-application of mind sufficiently forms the ground for quashment of the impugned order. 16. The Apex Court in case titled ‘Ameen a Begum Vs. State of Telangana and Others ( 2023 9 SCC 587 ) ’ has held that the order of detention must not be waste upon stale events. It would be profitable to reproduce the paragraph-17 of the said judgment herein as: “In a different context, we may take note of the decision in Sama Aruna vs. State of Telangana where, S.A. Bobde, J. (as the Chief Justice then was) while construing the provisions of the Act, held: “16. There is little doubt that the conduct or activities of the detenu in the past must be taken into account for coming to the conclusion that he is going to engage in or make preparations for engaging in such activities, for many such persons follow a pattern of criminal activities. But the question is how far back? There is no doubt that only activities so far back can be considered as furnish a cause for preventive detention in the present. But the question is how far back? There is no doubt that only activities so far back can be considered as furnish a cause for preventive detention in the present. That is, only those activities so far back in the past which lead to the conclusion that he is likely to engage in or prepare to engage in such activities in the immediate future can be taken into account.” In holding that the order of detention therein was grounded on stale grounds, the Court held that “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.” 17. The Apex Court in another case titled ‘ Khawaja Bilal Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana (2020) 13 SCC 632 , has held that the Detaining Authority has not to delve into the history of cases involving the detenue but prevent him doing something that is against the public order or the security of the state and in doing so the Detaining Authority has to arrive at the subjective satisfaction based on the activities, the detenue is indulging in and may continue to do in future. It would be profitable to reproduce Para- 23 of the said judgment herein as under: “23. If the pending cases were not considered for passing the order of detention, it defies logic as to why they were referred to in the first place in the order of detention. The purpose of the Telangana Offenders Act 1986 is to prevent any person from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the pending cases were not considered for passing the order of detention, it defies logic as to why they were referred to in the first place in the order of detention. The purpose of the Telangana Offenders Act 1986 is to prevent any person from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. For this purpose, Section 3 prescribes that the detaining authority must be satisfied that the person to be detained is likely to indulge in illegal activities in the future and act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The satisfaction to be arrived at by the detaining authority must not be based on irrelevant or invalid grounds. It must be arrived at on the basis of relevant material; material which is not stale and has a live link with the satisfaction of the detaining authority. The order of detention may refer to the previous criminal antecedents only if they have a direct nexus or link with the immediate need to detain an individual. If the previous criminal activities of the appellant could indicate his tendency or inclination to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, then it may have a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. However, in the absence of a clear indication of a causal connection, a mere reference to the pending criminal cases cannot account for the requirements of Section 3. It is not open to the detaining authority to simply refer to stale incidents and hold them as the basis of an order of detention. Such stale material will have no bearing on the probability of the detenu engaging in prejudicial activities in the future (Emphasis supplied) 18. The live and proximate link between the year 2024 and 2016 or 2022 is missing in the instant case and in view of the ratio laid down in the judgments supra the impugned order appears to have been based on stale incidents, therefore, cannot stand the test of law as the imperativeness to invoke the power of preventive detention based on the stale incidents and where the criminal proceedings have already been began and in one case resulted in acquittal also, is not based on the settled legal principles. 19. In above background, the impugned detention order No.24/DMB/PSA/24 dated 12.04.2024 passed by respondent No. 1 District Magistrate Baramulla, is quashed . 19. In above background, the impugned detention order No.24/DMB/PSA/24 dated 12.04.2024 passed by respondent No. 1 District Magistrate Baramulla, is quashed . Respondents are directed to release the detenue forthwith provided he is not required in any other case. 20 . Disposed of 21. Registry to return the detention record to the learned Counsel for the respondents against receipt.