JUDGMENT Dharmadhikari, J.- In these two writ petitions the detenus have challenged the orders of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, detaining them under the provisions of the National Security Act. Since both these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Shri Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended before us that the incidents alleged in the grounds of detention were due to the previous enemity between two groups and were confined to the members of the said groups only and, therefore had no nexus with the maintenance of public order. At the most it could involve the question of law and order and nothing more. Further he contended that some of the documents supplied to the detenu were wholly illegible. In some, material portion was omitted, which clearly amounted to non-communication of the said grounds of detention. It was also his case that there has been delay in considering the representations made by the detenus to the State Government as well as to the Central Government. He also contended that vital material which could have weighed with the detaining authority one way or the other, was not placed before the detaining authority viz. the orders of bail passed by the competent courts of law. According to him it is an admitted position that both the detenus were released on bail on 16th of January 1986 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, so far as the first incident dated 13th of December 1985 is concerned. They were released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class so far as the second incident dated 20th January 1986 is concerned. In the grounds of detention the detaining authority bas not made any reference either to the bail applications filed by the detenus or the orders of bail passed by the competent courts of law. Further the orders passed on the bail applications were not simplicitor orders granting bail but certain conditions were imposed upon the detenus and, therefore, there was no possibility that the detenus could have involved themselves in similar activities in future. 3. Further the orders passed on the bail applications were not simplicitor orders granting bail but certain conditions were imposed upon the detenus and, therefore, there was no possibility that the detenus could have involved themselves in similar activities in future. 3. On the other band it is contended by Shri Hombalkar the learned Public Prosecutor, that it is not correct to say that the incidents in which the detenus were involved had no nexus with the maintenance of public order. Enormity and gravity of the detenus activities clearly indicate that they had created a reign of terror in the locality which had direct nexus with the maintenance of public order. It is also not correct to say that some of the documents supplied to the detenus are either not readable or some portion from it was omitted. What was omitted was merely the endorsement by the Doctor on the dying declaration, which was not relevant nor the de1aining authority had relied upon the said endorsement. What was relied upon was the statement of Balaram, copies of which were supplied to the detenus. He also contended that there was no delay in considering the representations made by the detenus either on the part of the State Government or the Central Government. So far as the last contention regarding non-placement of the orders of bail passed on the bail applications filed by the detenus are concerned, it is contended by Shri Hombalkar that such a contention was not raised in specific terms in the writ petitions though now raised by amendment. However, he could not dispute that in fact the orders passed by the competent courts on the bail applications filed by the detenus were not placed before the detaining authority. 4. Thus on the admitted position as to whether non reference to the bail orders passed by the competent courts or its non-placement before the detaining authority, will vitiate the orders of detention it will be worthwhile to note the orders passed by the courts concerned. The 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Thane on 16th January 1986 passed the order on the application for bail filed by the detenus in the following terms: “Applicants be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. bond for Rs. 5000/- with surety bond of solvent surety of the same like amount in the lower court. The 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Thane on 16th January 1986 passed the order on the application for bail filed by the detenus in the following terms: “Applicants be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. bond for Rs. 5000/- with surety bond of solvent surety of the same like amount in the lower court. Applicants are hereby prohibited from entering the jurisdiction of Kalyan Railway Police Station till filing of the charge-sheets" . It appears to be an admitted position that no charge-sheet is filed in the said case till today. By the second bail order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane dated 27.1.1986, the detenus were released on furnishing security of Rs. 5000/- each and they were also directed to attend the Police Station daily from 8 to 10 p.m. until further orders. It was also directed that if they violate the directions incorporated in the order they may be arrested and produced before the court for further order. It appears that there was no violation of these directions and, therefore no action to produce the detenus before the court was taken. Therefore in this case it is ID admitted position that the orders of bail passed were not simplicitor orders of bail but certain conditions were imposed on the detenus. From the bare reading of the grounds of detention it is further dear that the detaining authority has not taken even a note of the fact that the detenus were released on bail. It is also an admitted position that the orders of bail were not placed before the detaining authority. Therefore in our view to the present case the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and another1 decided on 14th November 1986 must apply. In this context a reference could usefully be made to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the said decision, which reads as under: “…….. The one contention strongly pressed before use by the Petitioner's counsel is that the detailing authority was not made aware at the time the detention order was made that the detenu had moved applications for bail in the three pending cases and that be was enlarged on bail on 13.1.1986, 14.1.1986 and 15.1.1986. We have gone through the detention order carefully. We have gone through the detention order carefully. There is absolutely no mention in the order about the fact that the petitioner was an under trial prisoner that he was arrested in connection with the three cases that applications for bail were pending and that he was released on three successive days in the three cases. This indicates a total absence of application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. In our view this is the short manner in which the two cases can be disposed of. If the petitioner is found disturbing law and order or misusing the bail granted to him, the authorities would be at liberty to move the appropriate court to get the bail orders cancelled. One does not know how, the detaining authority would have acted if he was made aware of the above details. We are not satisfied that this is a fit case to resort to preventive detention. We refrain from referring to the other grounds urged before us and from examining them. The petitioner is entitled to succeed on the first ground. We hold that there was clear non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority about the fact that the petitioner was granted bail when the order of detention was passed……” 5. Even prior to this judgment in Ramesh Yadav's case2, some what similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court. We are informed by Shri Hombalkar that this legal position was brought to the notice of the State Government by the Office of the Public Prosecutor and in spite of this such orders are being passed. If this is true then this is wholly regrettable. If inspite of the well settled law in the field, the detaining authorities are passing such orders in most casual and cavalier manner, then it could safely be said that they are not serious in passing the orders, at all. As observed by the Supreme Court same not only discloses total non-application of mind so far as the orders of detention are concerned and to say the least this also shows total non-application of mind to the law laid down by the highest court of the land. We hope that at least hereafter the concerned authorities will take a note of it. We hope that at least hereafter the concerned authorities will take a note of it. In this view of the matter we have no other alternative but to hold that the orders of detention passed in these two writ petitions are illegal. Hence Rule in both these writ petitions is made absolute and the detenus are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Copies of this judgment be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police as well as Secretary to the Home Department/Mantralaya, Bombay. Detention order set aside. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 1986 (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2049 of 1986). 2. AIR 1986 SC 315