Judgment : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer: 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.05.2025 passed in F No.U-11011/33/2025-PITNDPS by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, (PITNDPS Unit), New Delhi under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (as amended), by which the petitioner has been directed to be detained and kept in Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribag and the petitioner further prays for quashing the order dated 29.07.2025 passed in F.No. 11012/19/2025 PITNDPS by the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, (PITNDPS Unit), New Delhi under Section 9(f) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, by which the Central Govt. confirms the aforesaid detention order dated 13.05.2025 and further under Section 11 of the said Act petitioner has been directed to be detained for a period of one years from the date of his detention i.e., 02.06.2025. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as under: 3. It is stated in the writ petition that vide order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (PITNDPS Unit), New Delhi (Respondent No.2) in F-No. U- 11011/33/2025-PITNDPS U/s 3(1) of the Prevention of illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (as amended), the petitioner has been directed to be detained and kept in Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribag with a view to prevent him from engaging in illicit trafficking of narcotics drugs & psychotropic substances in future. 4. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.07.2025 passed in F-No. U-11011/19/2025-PITNDPS by the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (PIINDPS Division), New Delhi (Respondent No.3) U/s 9(f) of the Prevention of illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, the Central Govt. confirms the aforesaid detention order dated 13.05.2025 and further under Section 11 of the said Act, petitioner has been directed to be detained for a period of one year from the date of his detention i.e. 02.06.2025. 5. confirms the aforesaid detention order dated 13.05.2025 and further under Section 11 of the said Act, petitioner has been directed to be detained for a period of one year from the date of his detention i.e. 02.06.2025. 5. The sponsoring authority, NCB, Ranchi Zonal Unit in the PITNDPS Proposal has mentioned that there are two cases of NDPS Act, 1985 against the petitioner and they are 1. NCB Ranchi Crime No. 02/2024 dated 21.04.2024 and 2. NCB Ranchi Crime No. 01/2016 dated 18.05.2016. 6. It is alleged that on 20.04.2024, a team of NCB Ranchi visited the house of the petitioner at his old address to execute the NBWA issued against him in connection with NCB Ranchi crime No. 01/2016 and on 21.04.2024, the NCB team apprehended the petitioner at his new address at Chouparan and seized 275 grams of opium and Rs. 1,00,000/- cash from his conscious possession and in voluntary statement, he has admitted his guilt in trafficking opium and disclosed that he is main supplier of opium in small packets weighing 5-10 grams to truck drivers going towards Haryana and Punjab and further admitted to assisting his brother Naresh Tiwari in trafficking poppy straw and being present during the 2016 seizure of 102 kg poppy straw at Tiwari Hotel, Chouparan (NCB Crime No. 01/2016) and he was arrested on 21.04.2024 U/s 18 (C) of NDPS Act and remanded to judicial custody on 22.04.2024. 7. In the aforesaid NCB Crime No. 02/2024, petitioner has been granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court on 24.10.2024 and the case is in evidence stage. 8. In another NCB Ranchi Crime No. 01/2016 dated 18.05.2016, it is alleged that on 18.05.2016, NCB Ranchi seized 102 Kg poppy straw from Tiwari Hotel, Chouparan, Hazaribag, located near NH-2 and arrested the accused Naresh Tiwari (brother of petitioner) u/s 15 NDPS Act, who was present during the seizure and admitted to operating the hotel with the petitioner and in this case, petitioner was summoned U/s 67 NDPS Act to join investigation but he absconded and notices u/s 67 NDPS Act dated 26.05.2016, 03.06.2016, 16.06.2016 and 25.07.2016 were issued against him, but he did not turn up before the case I.O., and final complaint was filed on 09.11.2016 against the petitioner as an absconding accused and the Learned Court below issued NBWA against the petitioner on 24.04.2019. Further, vide Judgment dated 30.04.2019, accused Naresh Tiwari (brother of petitioner) was convicted to RI for 20 years and a fine of Rs. One lakh. 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid cases the authority concerned based upon its subjective satisfaction has passed the order of detention dated 13.05.2025. 10. The said impugned detention order has been challenged by filing the instant writ petition. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner: 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned decision: - (i) The detaining authority (Respondent No.2) has illegally passed the detention order dated 13.05.2025 against the petitioner without application of judicial mind in view of the fact that detaining authority has observed that at the time of passing of the detention order dated 13.05.2025, detaining authority was aware that at present petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2024 in NCB Ranchi Crime No.01/2016 and there was no material for the detaining authority to have formed an opinion that there was likelihood of petitioner being released on bail in connection with NCB Ranchi Crime No. 01/2016. (ii) Submission has been made that when the petitioner is already in custody, the detaining authorities must satisfy himself and such satisfaction must be reached on the basis of cogent material that there is real possibility of detenue being released on bail, further if released on bail, the material on record must satisfy that he would indulge in prejudicial activity again, if not detained, but, there is no such satisfaction of the detaining authority in the present case. The issue of subjective satisfaction, in the facts of the present case, is relevant since the writ petitioner was made accused in connection with the cases of illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. (iii) While passing the detention order, the detaining authority has not considered the fact that in NCB Ranchi Crime No. 01/2016, the petitioner was neither apprehended at the alleged place of occurrence nor any recovery was made from him and he has been made accused only on suspicion that main accused Naresh Tiwari confessed that petitioner is his brother and assisting him in the running of Hotel and further the said main accused Naresh Tiwari has never confessed that alleged seized poppy straw was supplied by the petitioner. Further, in NCB Ranchi Crime No. 02/2024, 275-gram opium was recovered from the petitioner, which is intermediary quantity, so the findings of the detaining authority that petitioner is actively involved in trafficking of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and he is a habitual offender is not based on the material available on the record. (iv) It is further submitted that in the aforesaid NCB Ranchi Crime No. 01/2016, petitioner has been allowed bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28.07.2025 in B.A. No. 10458 of 2024 only after the passing of the detention order dated 13.05.2025. (v) Further submission has been made that after passing the detention order, petitioner has also been acquitted in NCB Case No. 01/2016 vide Judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Court of the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribag. (vi) There is no material brought on record to show that proper communication of the grounds of the detention has been made available to the petitioner to make his representation. (vii) It has further been submitted that the petitioner is less educated and he can sign in Hindi somehow, but the grounds of the detention has not been properly communicated to the petitioner, therefore, he has not made his representation before the appropriate authority. 12. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the order of detention and its subsequent confirmation, therefore, suffers from an error and hence, not sustainable in the eye of law and fit to be set aside. Submission made by the learned counsel for the State 13. Per contra, learned ASGI, has submitted, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, that there is no error in the impugned decision, since, the petitioner was found to be habitual in trafficking of the narcotics which would be evident from the institution of First Information Reports. 14. Submission has been made that at Para-4 of the grounds of the detention order dated 13.05.2025, the detaining authority (Respondent No.2) has observed that he is aware that the petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2024 in NCB Ranchi Crime No. 01/2016. but considering the conscious involvement in illegal trafficking of drugs and psychotropic substances in a repeated manner to the detriment of the society, the impugned order has been passed. 15. but considering the conscious involvement in illegal trafficking of drugs and psychotropic substances in a repeated manner to the detriment of the society, the impugned order has been passed. 15. It has been submitted that from the material available before the authority, it is clearly established that the petitioner is actively involved in trafficking of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances and is a habitual offender and his presence in the society is threat to innocent person of the locality/State/Nation and his activities are in prejudicial to society. 16. It has been submitted that no statutory or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated. All the actions that have been taken against the petitioner is in complete compliance with the laws, specifically the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 and the respondents- authorities while passing the order has taken into consideration the report and opinion of the Advisory Board. 17. The petitioner is habitual offender and is involved in multiple large-scale trafficking operations and he poses a grave danger to the society at large. If the prayer of the petitioner would be allowed, the harmony of the society can be at threat. 18. It is submitted that the petitioner himself had admitted that he is the supplier of narcotics such as opium. The grant of bail by this court has no bearing on the order of prevention detention. 19. Further submission has been made that the petitioner deliberately did not join the investigation and remained absconding for several years. 20. Learned counsel has submitted that it is also incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that there is no subjective satisfaction, rather, each and every aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the competent sanctioning authority which on being deliberated by the Advisory Board has upheld the decision so taken by the State. When two authorities have upheld the issue of confining the petitioner in detention, it cannot be said that there is no subjective satisfaction. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, not a case where the order of detention is said to suffer from an error. Analysis 22. When two authorities have upheld the issue of confining the petitioner in detention, it cannot be said that there is no subjective satisfaction. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, not a case where the order of detention is said to suffer from an error. Analysis 22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order of detention as also the pleadings made on behalf of the petitioner and the State as available in the writ petition and the counter affidavits. 23. The issues which require consideration in the present case is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can it be said that the authorities have got the subjective satisfaction while passing the order of detention? 24. But, before considering the said issues, the statutory provision as contained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 with its object and intent needs to be referred herein. 25. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 has been enacted keeping in view that in recent years, India has been facing a problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs. The spillover from such traffic has caused problems of abuse and addiction. This trend has created an illicit demand for drugs within the country which may result in the increase of illicit cultivation and manufacture of drugs. Although a number of legislative, administrative and other preventive measures, including the deterrent penal provisions in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985, have been taken by the Government, the transit traffic in illicit drugs had not been completely eliminated. It was, therefore, felt that a preventive detention law should be enacted with a view to effectively immobilising the traffickers. The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 provides for preventive detention in relation to smuggling of drugs and psychotropic substances, but it cannot be invoked to deal with persons engaged in illicit traffic of drugs and psychotropic substances within the country. It was, therefore, felt that a separate legislation should be enacted for preventive detention of persons engaged in any kind of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 26. It was, therefore, felt that a separate legislation should be enacted for preventive detention of persons engaged in any kind of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 26. The relevant provisions which require consideration are Section 3, 6, 9 and 11 of the Act,1988, which are necessary to be referred herein which read hereunder as :- 3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons .-(I) The Central Government or a State Government, or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that, with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) When any order of detention is made by a State Government or by an officer empowered by a State Government, the State Government shall, within ten days, forward to the Central Government a report in respect of the order. (3) For the purposes of clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. 6. 6. Grounds of detention severable .-Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under sub-section (1) of section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly- (a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are- (i) vague, (ii) non-existent, (iii) not relevant, (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever, and it is not therefore possible to hold that the Government or officer making such order would have been satisfied as provided in sub-section (I) of section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention; (b) the Government or officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said sub-section (I) after being satisfied as provided in that sub-section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds. 9. Advisory Boards. 9. Advisory Boards. -For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4) and subclause (c) of clause (7) of article 22 of the Constitution,- (a) the Central Government' and each State Government shall, whenever necessary, constitute one or more Advisory Boards each of which shall consist of a Chairman and two other persons possessing the qualifications specified in sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of article 22 of the Constitution; (b) save as otherwise provided in section 10, the appropriate Government shall, within five weeks from the date of detention of a person under a detention order, make a reference in respect thereof to the Advisory Board constituted under clause (a) to enable the Advisory Board to make the report under sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of article 22 of the Constitution; (c) the Advisory Board to which a reference is made under clause (b) shall after considering the reference and the materials placed before it and after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or from any person, called for the purpose through the appropriate Government or from the person concerned, and if, in any particular case, it considers it essential so to do or if the person concerned desires to be heard in person, after hearing him in person, prepare its report specifying in a separate paragraph thereof its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned and submit the same within eleven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned; (d) when there is a difference of opinion among the members forming the Advisory Board, the opinion of the majority of such members shall be deemed to be the opinion of the Board; (e) a person against whom an order of detention has been made under this Act shall not be entitled to appear by any legal practitioner in any matter connected with the reference to the Advisory Board and the proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report, excepting that part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall be confidential; (f) in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall be confidential; (f) in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the appropriate Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith. 11. Maximum period of detention .-The maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 10 do not apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 9 shall be one year from the date of detention, and the maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 10 apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 9, read with sub- section (2) of section 10, shall be two years from the date of detention: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall affect the power of appropriate Government in either case to revoke or modify the detention order at any earlier time.” 27. Hence, it is evident that the Act, 1988 has been enacted since India has been facing a problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs. It was, therefore, felt that a preventive detention law should be enacted with a view to effectively immobilising the traffickers. The Central Government and the State Governments have been empowered to make orders of detention with respect to any person in respect of whom an order of detention is made under the Ordinance at any time before the 31st July, 1990 may be detained without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board for a period not exceeding one year from the date of his detention if the detaining authority is satisfied that such person is engaged, or is likely to engage, in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in any area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic. 28. 28. Further, the “illicit Traffic” has been defined as under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1988 which reads hereunder as :- 2. (e) "illicit traffic", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means- (i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant; (ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; (iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment, of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances; (iv) dealing in any activities in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances other than those provided in sub-clauses (i) to (iii); or (v) handling or letting any premises for the carrying on of any of the activities referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv), other than those permitted under the Naroctic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) or any rule or order made, or any condition of any licence, term or authorisation issued, thereunder and includes- (1) financing, directly or indirectly, any of the aforementioned activities: (2) abetting or conspiring in the furtherance of or in support of doing any of the aforementioned activities; and (3) harbouring persons engaged in any of the aforementioned activities: 29. Section 3 of the Act, 1988 provides power to make orders detaining certain persons wherefrom it is evident that the competent authority if satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that, with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. But, for the purpose of clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. 30. 30. Section 9 of the Act, 1988 provides constitution of an Advisory Board with an intent to achieve the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4) and subclause (c) of clause (7) of article 22 of the Constitution of India with the conferment of power upon the Advisory Board that if any reference has been made and the materials placed before it and after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or from any person, called for the purpose through the appropriate Government or from the person concerned, and if, in any particular case, it considers it essential so to do or if the person concerned desires to be heard in person, after hearing him in person, prepare its report specifying in a separate paragraph thereof its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned and submit the same within eleven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. 31. The maximum period of detention has been provided under Section 11 of the Act, 1988 and as provided therein any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 10 do not apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 9 shall be one year from the date of detention, and the maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 10 apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 9, read with sub-section (2) of section 10, shall be two years from the date of detention. 32. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provisions; the factual aspect of the present case is to be considered in order to consider the issue as formulated hereinabove. 33. Reverting to the issue in the present case. Before, proceeding further, it would be pertinent to mention the case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles to be observed by the Constitutional Court while examining the legality of orders of preventive detention. Paragraph-28 of this judgment is quoted herein below- “ 28. Before, proceeding further, it would be pertinent to mention the case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles to be observed by the Constitutional Court while examining the legality of orders of preventive detention. Paragraph-28 of this judgment is quoted herein below- “ 28. In the circumstances of a given case, a constitutional court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine whether: 28.1. The order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied; 28.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute; 28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires; 28.4. The detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body; 28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorised by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case; 28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate; 28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale; 28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached; 28.9. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached; 28.9. The grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and 28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to.” 34. Hence, Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana (supra) , on the issue of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has laid down that the order based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied. Hon’ble Apex Court further laid down that the court may examine that the satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain or is based on material which is stale. 35. On going through the detention order dated 13.05.2025, this Court finds that there is reference of two pending cases against the detenue-NCB Ranchi Crime No. 01/2016 dated 18.05.2016 and NCB Ranchi Crime No. 02/2024 dated 21.04.2024. 36. Hence, the oldest case against the detenue is of the year 2016 and the latest case is of the year 2024. So, there is gap of 8 years in between the two crimes alleged to be committed by the detenue and in this gap of 8 years there is no other cases registered against the detenue. 37. Here, it is pertinent to note that in NCB Ranchi Crime No. 02/2024, there is allegation of recovery of 275 grams of opium from the detenue and this alleged recovery was made when the team of NCB Ranchi had visited the house of the detenue to execute the NBWA issued against the detenue in connection with NCB Ranchi Crime No. 01/2016. 38. 38. Hence, this Court is of view that disturbance to the public order does not arise, when alleged recovery of 275 gm of opium is made during the execution of NBWA against the detenue in connection with NCB Ranchi Crime No. 01/2016 and consequently, NCB Ranchi Crime No. 02/2024 registered against the petitioner/detenue, for the alleged recovery of 275 gm of opium from the petitioner/detenue, may be ground for initiating criminal prosecution against the petitioner/detenue, but, it would not be a ground for setting in motion preventive detention as the same would in no way said to be prejudicial to public order, in light of the fact that there is difference of 8 years between the alleged offences and in one of the case the writ petitioner has already been acquitted. 39. Further, this Court is conscious that detention order is passed by the competent authority anticipating the criminality of the detenue. Hence, the ground of bail or acquittal in some cases cannot be said to affect the decision taken by the competent authority for preventive detention rather the accusation so made in the First Information Report is to be seen for the purpose to have the subjective satisfaction of the nature of accusation made in the said FIR. 40. But, in present case, out of the two pending cases referred in the impugned detention order, detenue has been acquitted in NCB Ranchi Crime No. 01/2016, by the learned Trial Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh, by order dated 19.09.2025 i.e. after the passing of the impugned detention order on 13.05.2025 and so far as NCB Ranchi Crime No. 02/2024,is concerned, in the preceding paragraph, this Court has come to the conclusion that NCB Ranchi Crime No. 02/2024, is not a ground for setting in motion preventive detention against the petitioner/detenue. Here, it is also pertinent to note that petitioner has been granted bail in NCB Ranchi Crime No. 02/2024, on 24.10.2024, by the Court of law and this case is at evidence stage. 41. Here, it is also pertinent to note that petitioner has been granted bail in NCB Ranchi Crime No. 02/2024, on 24.10.2024, by the Court of law and this case is at evidence stage. 41. Hence, this Court finds that detaning authority has failed to establish live and proximate link between the past conduct of a detenue and the imperative need to detain him for the reason that there is gap of 8 years in between the two crimes referred in the impugned detention order, alleged to be committed by the detenue and in this gap of 8 years there is no other cases registered against the detenue and hence, question of disturbance to the public order does not arise. 42. So, this court is of the view that there was no material before the detaining authority to come to a subjective satisfaction with regard to the disturbance that was caused to the public order, due to the alleged acts committed by the detenu. 43. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the impugned order of detention needs interference. 44. Accordingly, the detention order dated 13.05.2025 passed in F No.U-11011/33/2025-PITNDPS by the Respondent No.2 Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenuue, (PITNDPS Unit), New Delhi and order dated 29.07.2025 passed in F.No. 11012/19/2025 PITNDPS by the respondent No. 3 Deputy Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, (PITNDPS Unit), New Delhi, are hereby quashed and set aside. 45. The writ petition stands allowed. 46. Consequently, the petitioner, abovenamed, is directed to be released forthwith from detention if not required in any other case. I agree Arun Kumar Rai, J.