As per case facts, the Petitioner challenged his preventive detention orders under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, and subsequent extensions, alleging illegal detention, non-application of mind, and violation ... of constitutional rights, including denial of representation. The detention was based on multiple criminal cases for serious offenses, and the State contended he was a habitual offender posing a threat to public order. The question arose whether the detention orders were legally sound, considering allegations of illegal detention, non-application of mind, violation of constitutional safeguards, and whether the petitioner fit the 'anti-social element' definition. Finally, the court dismissed the petition, finding that the detention orders were legally justified. The court confirmed the authorities' subjective satisfaction, that the petitioner was an 'anti-social element' as defined by law, and that constitutional safeguards were followed.