JUDGMENT : 1. In the instant petition, the detenue herein, through his sister namely Sunita Kumari, has challenged Order No. PSA 25 of 2024 dated 01.06.2024 issued by respondent No. 2, by virtue of which the detenue has been detained under preventive detention in terms of the provisions of Section 8(1) (a) of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. It is stated that FIR No. 59/2013 under Section 363/342 RPC came to registered at Police Station Bishnah on a written report lodged by one Kala Ram S/o Dheru Ram R/o W.No.13, Bishnah regarding missing of his daughter. In the complaint it was alleged that one Rinku Kumar S/o Bhushan Lal R/o Langotian, Miran Sahib had persuaded complainant?s daughter for marriage and kidnapped her on the pretext of marriage and took her to some unknown place. On completion of investigation, Challan was produced before the Court of law against the petitioner; FIR No. 44/2024 came to be registered at Police Station Miran Sahib, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 307/336/34 IPC and 3/25/27 of Arms Act on the basis of information received through reliable sources that notorious criminal namely, Karnjit Singh @ Gigga alongwith Ishmit Singh @ Krish in league with others had opened indiscriminate firing outside Khajuria Food Mall,, Miran Sahib in order to kill owner of the Mall in lieu of extortion (ferroti). During investigation, involvement of the petitioner was found and accordingly, he was arrested and the case is still under investigation; FIR No.74/2024 under Section 452/307/34 IPC and 3/25/27 of Arms Act was registered at Police Station, R.S.Pura on a written report by one Yash Paul that two persons namely Gokal, Goga alongwith one unknown came on a motorcycle after stopping their motorcycle outside his house Goga fired two rounds out of which one hit the box of pigeon. On hearing the sound, complainant?s wife reached near main gate, they caught hold her from neck and dragged her. On hue and cry by the complainant and his wife, accused fled away from the spot. During investigation, involvement of the petitioner was found and the FIR is still under investigation. In the grounds of detention it is stated, that the petitioner is a dreaded/notorious criminal and is addicted to crime. His activities are grave threat to the security of the State. During investigation, involvement of the petitioner was found and the FIR is still under investigation. In the grounds of detention it is stated, that the petitioner is a dreaded/notorious criminal and is addicted to crime. His activities are grave threat to the security of the State. The Detaining Authority after drawing subjective satisfaction came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a threat to the society and public order and order his detention for the purpose of preventing and combating his activities prejudicial to the security of the State, maintenance of public safety and afford protection to the society. 3. It is stated that the detention of the detenue under preventive detention is illegal, arbitrary and without any lawful jurisdiction as the substantive law of the land could have sufficiently taken care of the alleged activities of the detenue. The detenue, as such, has challenged the impugned order inter alias on the grounds:- a) That the impugned order of detention has been issued in an unreasonable, arbitrary and malafide manner. b) That the order impugned has been issued in a casual and mechanical manner without proper application of mind to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. c) That the grounds of impugned detention order is verbatim copy of the dossier and no other material has been considered by the detaining authority which speaks volumes about the non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority which does not justify the preventive detention and the detention order requires quashment. d) The order impugned is bad in law, because before directing preventive detention of the petitioner, the Detaining Authority did not call for the present status of the FIRs, which have been formed basis for detaining the petition under preventive custody. e) A bare perusal of the order impugned and grounds of detention transpires unawareness of the Detaining Authority as to whether petitioner was in custody or released on bail which makes the order impugned bad in law and liable to be quashed. f) That Grounds of Detention indicates that the preventive detention of the petitioner is felt necessary for preventing and combating activities of the petitioner, which are prejudicial to the security of the State, maintenance of public safety and afford protection to the society. The expression „law and order?, „public order? and „security of state? f) That Grounds of Detention indicates that the preventive detention of the petitioner is felt necessary for preventing and combating activities of the petitioner, which are prejudicial to the security of the State, maintenance of public safety and afford protection to the society. The expression „law and order?, „public order? and „security of state? makes lot of difference and these expressions have different meanings and connotation and a person can be detained under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 either for maintenance of public order or for security of State and not for both. On this count also, the impugned order of detention is bad in law. g) That no satisfaction has been recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention while passing the order of detention. h) That all the safeguards available to the detenue in terms of the Constitution of India have been observed in breach by the respondents while detaining him in terms of impugned order. i) The grounds of detention, detention order and dossier were not provided to the petitioner within the stipulated period and same were neither read over nor explained to the petitioner in the language which he understands 4. Per contra, the respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the detnue is a habitual offender and is involved in many criminal offences and is repeatedly blatantly violating the rule of law including Arms Act. The petitioner has no respect for the law of the land and his activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner has created terror and fear among the locals and his criminal activities disturb even tempo of life of community. It is stated that the petitioner is continuously indulging in criminal activities and has become a chronic criminal and three FIRs stand registered against him details of which have been given in the grounds of detention. It is stated that the “maintenance of public order” always occurs in juxtaposition with public safety. Repeated offences committed by the detenue, who inflict major harm and injury on public, is not only prejudicial to the public safety and public order but also has the potential to impact overall security of the state. It is stated that the “maintenance of public order” always occurs in juxtaposition with public safety. Repeated offences committed by the detenue, who inflict major harm and injury on public, is not only prejudicial to the public safety and public order but also has the potential to impact overall security of the state. It is stated that the dossier in respect of detenue dated 31.05.2024 was submitted to the detaining authority and after carefully examining the dossier and the relevant records attached with it, it was found imperative to detain the detenue under the relevant provisions of Public Safety Act as his criminal activities were posing serious threat to the maintenance of public order. It is further stated that the ordinary law has failed to deter the detenue, as is evident from his conduct as would emerge from the contents of the dossier submitted by SSP Jammu. 5. It is further stated that at the time of execution of detention order, the executing officer has provided the relevant documents along with detention order, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier of detention, copies of FIRs and statements of witnesses (total 35 leaves) and had explained the same to the detenue in the language i.e Hindi/Dogri, which he understands, informing him about his right to make representation before the Government (Home Department) as well as before the Detaining Authority against the detention order. Respondents have also placed on record the execution report, and confirmation of detention order by Home Department after seeking opinion of the Advisory Board. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the detenue states that the impugned detention order suffers from non-application of mind as the grounds of detention are mere reproduction of the dossier. It is submitted that at the time of passing of the detention order the petitioner was already in custody in connection with FIR No.44/2024 registered at Police Station, Miran Sahib, whereas the grounds of detention indicates total unawareness of the detaining authority regarding petitioner?s custody, which vitiates the detention order. 8. It is submitted that at the time of passing of the detention order the petitioner was already in custody in connection with FIR No.44/2024 registered at Police Station, Miran Sahib, whereas the grounds of detention indicates total unawareness of the detaining authority regarding petitioner?s custody, which vitiates the detention order. 8. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order of detention is also liable to be quashed on the ground that the grounds of detention have been read over and explained to the detenue in a language he is not conversant with and that the whole material relied upon by the detaining authority has not been supplied to the detenue. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in Bhupal Chndra Ghose v. Mr. Arif Ali and others, (1974) 1 SCC 253 , Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate Jabalpur and others, (2021) 20 SCC 98 , G.M.Shah v. State of Jammu & Kashir, (1980) 1 SCC 132 , Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India and others, (1990) 1 SCC 746, M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India and another, (1990) 2 SCC 1 and judgments of this Court in Faizan Rafiq Hakeem v. State of J&K and others, 2011 (3) JKJ[HC] 238, Gh. Hassan Kanroo v. State of J& K and another, JKJ Online 19297, Ghulam Rasool v UT of J&K and others, 2024 SCC Online J&K 828. 10. Mr. Rajesh Thappa, learned AAG on the other hand submits that the detenue is a hardcore/habitual criminal and has been involved in various criminal offences by blatantly violating the rule of law indulging in criminal activities and has spread a reign of terror amongst the peace-loving people of the area and his anti-social activities are pre-judicial to the maintenance of public order and had he been let free, there would have been every likelihood of his re- indulging in criminal activities. He further submits that the procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of Public Safety Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been followed in the instant case. The detenue has been furnished all the material, as was required, and was also made aware of his right to make representation to the detaining authority as well as to the government, against his detention. 11. Considered the submissions made and perused the material made available. 12. The detenue has been furnished all the material, as was required, and was also made aware of his right to make representation to the detaining authority as well as to the government, against his detention. 11. Considered the submissions made and perused the material made available. 12. Perusal of the detention record produced by the counsel representing the respondents indicates that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu submitted dossier in respect of the detenue to the Detaining Authority on 31.05.2024 with a request to detain the detenue under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act and the detaining authority by virtue of the order impugned issued on 01.06.2024 itself has ordered detention of the detenue under preventive detention. The detention order came to be executed on 03.06.2024. The Execution Report reveals that the notice of detention was given to the detenue and contents of the detention warrant and grounds of detention have been read over and explained to the detenue/detenue in Hindi/Dogri language, which he understood fully. The relevant material consisting of detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), ground of detention (05 leaves), dossier of detention (06 leaves), copies of FIR, statement of witnesses and other related relevant documents (22 leaves) total 35 leaves have been supplied to the detenue, which has been acknowledged by him by affixing his signatures on the execution receipt. The detenue was also informed by the executing officer that he can make representation to the Government as well as Detaining Authority against his detention, if he so desires. The petitioner filed a representation to the Government of UT of J&K on 26.09.2024, which stands rejected vide communication dated 27.12.2024, a copy whereof was also endorsed to Superintendent Central Jail, Jammu for informing the detenue about rejection of his representation. 13. In the instant case, the detenue has been ordered to be detained in preventive detention under the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of State, maintenance of public safety and afford protection to the society. 14. Section 8 of the Public Safety Act provides that detenue can be arrested for acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of public order. 14. Section 8 of the Public Safety Act provides that detenue can be arrested for acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of public order. That denotes that he can be detain on one of the grounds and he cannot be detained for both the grounds and if it is disclosed that the deteue has been detained on both the grounds then the detention order becomes invalid. Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Shah (supra) while relying on Dr. Ram Maohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740 held thus:- “As observed by Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) in Dr. Ram Manohar - Lohia v. State of Bihar & Ors. one has to imagine three concentric circles, in order to understand the meaning and import of the above expressions. 'Law and order' represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing "public order" and the smallest circle represents "security of State". It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of State. It is in view of the above distinction, the Act defines the expressions "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State" and "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" separately. It is in view of the above distinction, the Act defines the expressions "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State" and "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" separately. An order of detention made either on the basis that the detaining authority is satisfied that the person against whom the order is being made is acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or on the basis that he is satisfied that such person is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order but which is attempted to be supported by placing reliance on both the bases in the grounds furnished to the detenu has to be held to be an illegal one vide decisions of this Court in Bhupal Chandra Ghosh v. Arif Ali & Ors.(2) and Satya Brata Ghose v. Arif Ali & Ors, AIR 1974 SC 258 .” 15 In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in G.M.Shah (supra), contention of the petitioner that the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind as the detaining authority was not certain whether the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the security of State or maintenance of public order and has mentioned both in the grounds of detention finds substance. 16 The petitioner in his petition has specially stated that he was in custody when the order of detention was passed in connection with FIR No.44/2024, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit. In the grounds of detention which form basis for detaining the petitioner under preventive detention, detaining authority has shown total ignorance about the present status of the petitioner, whether he was on bail or in custody and if he was already in custody what were those compelling circumstances under which preventive detention was ordered. If a detaining authority is unaware of the current custody status of a detenue, it is generally considered a clear indication of "non-application of mind," meaning thereby that they did not carefully consider all relevant facts before making a detention decision, potentially rendering the detention order invalid. Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India and others, (1990) 1 SCC 746 , in para 21 of the judgment concluded as under:- “21. Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India and others, (1990) 1 SCC 746 , in para 21 of the judgment concluded as under:- “21. The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent materi- al before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenu is likely to be re- leased from custody in the near future, and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.” 17 From a perusal of the material available on the file, the ground regarding non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority appears to be forceful, as the grounds of detention do not bear any reference to the fact that the detenue has already been admitted to bail in the aforesaid FIRs, on the basis of which, he has been taken into preventive custody. The non-mentioning of this important fact in the grounds of detention exhibits non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. This shows that the detaining authority has not meticulously examined the record which passing the impugned order of detention which renders the same unsustainable in law. 18 Insofar as plea of the detenue that he has been deprived of his right to make effective representation is concerned, it is evident from the execution report that the entire material relied upon by the detaining authority was supplied to the detenue, which he has acknowledged by affixing his signature on the receipt. The detenue was also informed of his right to make representation against the detention order before the detaining authority as well as the Government. The detenue was also informed of his right to make representation against the detention order before the detaining authority as well as the Government. The record reveals that the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents. 19 From the discussion made above, it becomes manifest that the impugned order of detention suffers from total non-application of mind because the detaining authority was not sure whether the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of public order and has ordered detention of the petitioner on both the grounds, which is legally invalid. Further, the unawareness of the detaining authority about custody of the petitioner while directing preventive detention makes the impugned order bad in law. 20 In the premises, this petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith provided he is not involved in any other case. The record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.