MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) ). The petitioner who is the detenu has challenged the order of detention, dated 7-9-1990 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities act, 1985. The order is annexed at Annexure "a". ( 2 ) ). It is, inter alia, alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is involved in 9 Criminal Cases under Chapter 16. It is also alleged that the petitioner threatens people with dire consequences at the point of weapons and thus terror is prevailing amongst the peace-loving citizens of the area of Naroda of Ahmedabad City and that the petitioner has become an obstruction to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, an order of detention is passed against him. ( 3 ) ). The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that at the time of making the proposal by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority, the material documents, viz. , the bail applications filed by the detenu for releasing him on bail for the offence registered in C. R. No. 164 of 1990 and other cases shown in the grounds were not placed before the detaining authority and the same is not also supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the said bail applications are material documents which ought to have been placed before the detaining authority. It is also averred by the petitioner that in the bail applications it is averred that the case is falsely registered against the present petitioner by the complainant because of enmity and that he is innocent. They are vital documents which have not been placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority and thus, the impugned order is impaired by non-placing of the important and relevant documents before the detaining authority thus, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated. ( 4 ) ). Mr. P. S. Patel, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State fairly produced before us a copy of the bail application in the case registered under C. R. No. 164 of 1990 filed by the detenu in the High court and submitted that application in other cases are not available. ( 4 ) ). Mr. P. S. Patel, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State fairly produced before us a copy of the bail application in the case registered under C. R. No. 164 of 1990 filed by the detenu in the High court and submitted that application in other cases are not available. We have gone through the contents of the bail application produced and we find that what the petitioner has stated has much force in it. In the bail application it is, inter alia, stated by the present detenu that he is falsely involved because of enmity by the complainant side and that he is innocent and that, in fact, the complainant side had made an attack on the detenu and the family members of the detenu and they were injured and that he is innocent. It is stated clearly that the petitioner was innocent and had not committed the said offence. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the contents of the bail applications in all cases were very much vital and relevant and, therefore, should have been treated as vital material and as these vital materials could have affected the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other, these vital material ought to have been placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority and as the same were withheld from the detaining auhority and as it is not possible to say how this material would have affected the ultimate conclusion of the detaining authority, it being a matter of subjective satisfaction, the order passed by him must be regarded as having been vitiated on that ground. There is no denial on behalf of the respondents that in other cases shown in the grounds of detention bail applications were not important, vital and relevant documents. ( 5 ) ). The learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Ahmedkutty v. Union of India, reported in 1990 (2) SCC 1 . In that case an application for bail was made by the detenu and it was stated in that application that he was falsely implicated at the instance of persons who were inimically disposed towards him. The court in that case, while releasing the detenu on bail, had imposed certain conditions. In that case an application for bail was made by the detenu and it was stated in that application that he was falsely implicated at the instance of persons who were inimically disposed towards him. The court in that case, while releasing the detenu on bail, had imposed certain conditions. Considering the said fact, the Supreme Court held that the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration and "if those were not considered, the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired, and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority, though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete". For that reason, the Supreme Court held that withholding of the said documents amounted to denial of the detenus right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal. The learned Advocate for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court (Coram : G. T. Nanavati and K. J. Vaidya, JJ.) in special Criminal Application No. 1257 of 1989 on 6-3-1990 (Jardullakhan H. Pathan v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1991 (1) GLR 493 ) wherein on similar facts, the Court quashed and set aside the order of detention passed under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social activities Act. In that case, the attention of the Court was drawn to the bail application made by the petitioner wherein it was clearly stated that the petitioner was innocent and that he had not committed the said offence. The attention of the Court was also invited to the order passed by the Court wherein it was observed that prima faice no case under Sec. 307 I. P. C. was made out by the prosecution and that the incident in question had happened as a result of a sudden quarrel between two individuals. The attention of the Court was also invited to the order passed by the Court wherein it was observed that prima faice no case under Sec. 307 I. P. C. was made out by the prosecution and that the incident in question had happened as a result of a sudden quarrel between two individuals. The Court observed that apart from the averment made in the bail application that the petitioner was innocent and not involved in the incident, the observations made in the bail order were really relevant as they clearly indicated that the incident was not that serious and that it had happened as a result of a sudden quarrel between two individuals. It was further observed that in this facts-situation it cannot be denied that the averment regarding denial made in the bail application and the observations made by the Court in the bail order were not relevant and vital. Considering these facts, the Court came to the conclusion that these vital materials ought to have been placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority for its consideration and as the same were withheld, the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority must be regarded as impaired. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Ahmedkuttys case, that petition was allowed. ( 6 ) ). In the facts of the present case, the bail applications were vital and material documents which ought to have been placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority and having withheld the said document for the consideration of the detaining authority the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority must be regarded as impaired. ( 7 ) ). In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention, dated 7-9-1990 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner-detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence in Jail is required in connection with some other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs. .