Mr. M. K. Chawla, J. ( 1 ) ON 29. 4. 85. 18 gold biscuits of 10 tolas eachwere recovered from the baggage of one P. Bhaskaran Nair who had landedat Trivendrum Airport on a flight which came from Sharja. On interrogation, Shri Bhaskaran stated that the zipper bag containing the foam mattresswith the 18 gold biscuits concealed therein had been given to him at Sharjaby one Kunhimon, a friend of his employer Shankaran, the petitioner herein. Shri Bhaskaran further disclosed that he was instructed by Kunhimon to handover the said zipper bag to one Velayudhan a relative of the petitioner whowould be waiting outside the airport to receive him. It is also the case ofthe Department that the statement of Shri P. K. . Velayudhan which wasrecorded on 29. 4. 85, revealed that he met the petitioner in the morning, whoinstructed him to go the airport to receive Shri Bhaskaran. ( 2 ) AS a consequence of the further investigation, petitioner wasarrested on 29. 4. 85 by the D. R. I, officers from Shri Chitra Medical Centrewhere he was confined and was undergoing treatment for cancer. On2. 5. 85, the petitioner moved an application for his release on bail which wasallowed by the learned A. C. J. M. , 1st Class. Ernakulam on 3. 5. 85, on hisexecuting a bond of Rs. 10. 000. 00 with two solvent sureties each of the likeamount. The petitioner was further directed to appear before the Superintendent, D. R. I, on every Monday and as and when required. However, in themeantime on 29. 10. 85. the Commissioner and Secretary (Home), Governmentof Kerala. while exercising his powers u/sec. 3 (1) of the Conservation offoreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in shortcofeposa Act), passed the order for the detention of the petitioner, with aview to preventing him from smuggling goods. Against this order of detention, the petitioner through his Counsel, made the representation to thecentral Government on 25. 8. 89 praying for the revocation of the order ofdetention though the same has not been served on him. His representationhas since been rejected. Against this order of detention, the petitioner through his Counsel, made the representation to thecentral Government on 25. 8. 89 praying for the revocation of the order ofdetention though the same has not been served on him. His representationhas since been rejected. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has now moved this Court under Article 226 of theconstitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code or Criminal Procedure for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of certiorarifor restraining the respondents From implementing the order of detentionpurported to have been passed u/sec. 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act, dated29. 10. 85 and also restraining them from taking any steps or action pursuantto the said order and for setting aside the same. ( 4 ) THE foremost contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioneris that while in judicial custody, the petitioner moved an application for hisrelease on bail on 2. 5. 85 before the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate1st Class Ernakulam, pursuant to which he was granted bail on 3. 5. 85 oncertain conditions. These two very relevant and material documents, whichwould have affected the mind of the detaining authority either way, weresuppressed from it, thus vitiating the subjective satisfaction and making thedetention order illegal. ( 5 ) IN the counter, filed by Rajesh Karan Nair, Additional Secretary tothe Government of Kerala, the stand of the respondent is as under :- "it is reported that the petitioner s as well as his accomplice s bailapplication or the orders thereon were not readily available withthe Department, therefore, the same could not be placed before thedetaining authority. Moreover, placement of the bail applicationor the bail order thereon with the detaining authority would in noway show the petitioner s involvement in an entirely differentlight. " ( 6 ) IT is not disputed that the bail application and the order passedthereon are very material documents which ought to have been placed beforethe detaining authority to enable it to arrive at the subjective satisfactionbefore passing the order of detention. The concealment of such like documents from the detaining authority have been held to be violative of theorder of detention. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench Judgment ofthis Court in the case Patta Ibrahim v. Union of India and Others, Cri. W. No. 7/88 decided on 21. 7. 88. The concealment of such like documents from the detaining authority have been held to be violative of theorder of detention. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench Judgment ofthis Court in the case Patta Ibrahim v. Union of India and Others, Cri. W. No. 7/88 decided on 21. 7. 88. ( 7 ) THE respondents cannot be allowed to raise the same plea, whichhas been rejected in the writ petition of the co-detenu Shri P. Bhaskarannair. It is the common case of the parties that the co-detenu challenged theorder of his detention dated 5. 11. 85 passed under the same provisions of thecofeposa Act by the same authority and in relation to the same incident. in his writ petition Cri. W. No. 490/88. This writ came up for hearingbefore the Division Bench of this Court and the order of detention wasquashed on the similar grounds with similar defence as is being put up in thiscase, on 20/12/1988. ( 8 ) I have carefully gone through the Judgment given in the case ofp. Bhaskaran Nair (Cri. W. 495/88) and find that it lays down the sameproposition of law which is applicable to the facts of the present case. Thedetention order was quashed on the ground that the baill application andthe order passed thereon whereby P. Bhaskaran was released on bail werenot placed before the detaining authority. ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter the ratio-descendi of the case in Shivdevsingh v. Delhi Administration, Crl. W. 244/85, decided on December, 6, 1985will fully apply. This Court held that if on similar reasons, detention orderof co-accused stands quashed, then for parity of reasons on account of aprecedent having been already set up, the detention of the other detenu mustalso be quashed. ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussions, I have no hesitation to holdthat the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on the shortground that the copies of the bail application and the order passed thereonwhich are very relevant and material documents were not placed before thedetaining authority, and that the order of detention of the co-detenu Shri P. Bhaskaran on this very point has already been quashed. I, therefore, allow the petition and direct the respondents not todetain the petitioner in pursuance of the proposed order of detention.