JUDGMENT - QAZI M.M., J.:—Mr. Ahmed requested for an adjournment on the ground that in Bombay 8 week's time is being granted to the State Government for filing the return, whereas in the instant case Rule was made returnable within four weeks. The case had come up for hearing on 2-3-1987 when an adjournment was asked for on behalf of the State and this Court adjourned it at the request of the Public Prosecutor for one week, and it was made clear that a last chance was being given so that the authorities could be ready with the affidavit. In spite of the clear indication on 2-3-1987 that the case was being adjourned by way of last chance, no return is placed on behalf of the State Government. In the circumstances, we see no reason to grant further adjournment as requested. 2. The present petition has to be allowed in view of the challenge raised in Ground No. '(q)' which reads thus : “(q) The petitioner says and submits that the petitioner was granted bail. The said bail order was vital and material document. It was obligatory on the part of the sponsoring authority to place before the Detaining Authority the said bail order and it was equally obligatory on the part of the Detaining Authority to consider the said bail order in depth before issuing the detention order. The order of detention and the ground of detention and the documents do not disclose that the said bail order was considered by the Detaining Authority. In view of this the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is vitiated and rendered the detention illegal, unconstitutional and void. 3. The detenu was released on bail by the Additional Presidency Magistrate vide order dated 15-4-1986 and the detention order was passed thereafter on 11-7-1986. The detenu was actually detained on 18th September, 1986. This Court has consistently held in number of cases that failure on the part of the sponsoring authority to place relevant material like the bail application and the order passed thereon enlarging the detenu on bail before the Detaining Authority would vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The detenu was actually detained on 18th September, 1986. This Court has consistently held in number of cases that failure on the part of the sponsoring authority to place relevant material like the bail application and the order passed thereon enlarging the detenu on bail before the Detaining Authority would vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The Supreme Court in the recent decision reported in the A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 137, (Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and another)1, has observed in para 5 as under : “We do not think it necessary to go into all the grounds urged before us by the petitioner's Counsel in support of his prayer to quash the order of detention. The one contention strongly pressed before us by the petitioner's Counsel is that the Detaining 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 he was enlarged on bail on 13-1-1986, 14-1-1986 and 15-1-1986. We have gone through the detention order carefully. There is absolutely no mention in the order about the fact that the petitioner was an undertrial 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 Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention.” 4. In addition to Ground (q), Mr. Kotwal has invited our attention to Ground (p). He has submitted that after the detenu was apprehended, his residence was searched by the authorities, but no incriminating material was found therein. According to Mr. Kotwal, search panchanama of the house of the detenu should have been placed by the sponsoring authority before the Detaining Authority, and since this relevant material was not placed before the Detaining Authority, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was vitiated. Since no counter affidavit is filed by the State, there is no denial to the challenges referred to above. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is clearly vitiated and consequently the detention order cannot be sustained. Since no counter affidavit is filed by the State, there is no denial to the challenges referred to above. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is clearly vitiated and consequently the detention order cannot be sustained. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and set side and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith, if not otherwise required in any other matter. Petition allowed.