JUDGMENT : K.G. Shah, J. Govind R. Vanker, the husband of the petitioner has been preventively detained under the order dated October 16, 1992, Annexure-A to the petition passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat, respondent No. 1 herein under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (for short the Act). The petitioner being the wife of the detenu has therefore challenged that detention order and the continued detention of the detenu by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Mr. Kapadia, the learned Advocate for the petitioner raised several contentions in support of the petition. He firstly, submitted that there has been unexplained, unreasonable and inordinate delay in the matter of consideration of the representation of the detenu made to the relevant authorities. He secondly submitted that though the detention order has been passed on October 16, 1992, the detenu was already in judicial custody since August 18, 1992 in connection with an offence registered at C.R.No. 267/ 92 at Chokbala Police Station under Sections 307 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code r.w. 35 of the Bombay Police Act and not only till the passing of the detention order but even till today, the detenu has not applied for bail and therefore the detention order was uncalled for, for there was no probability of the detenu coming out of jail and indulging in the activities in which allegedly he had in past indulged. According to Mr. Kapadia, the Detaining Authority having not considered that aspect of the matter, in its proper perspective, the detention order should fail. Thirdly, Mr. Kapadia submitted that though the Detaining Authority has calmed privilege under Section 9(2)of the Act and has withheld from the detenu the names and addresses of witnesses whose statements have been relied upon by the Detaining Authority, that claim of privilege cannot be sustained. A similar argument was made out by Mr. Kapadia also in relation to certain blanks left out in the grounds of detention. 3. Mr. A similar argument was made out by Mr. Kapadia also in relation to certain blanks left out in the grounds of detention. 3. Mr. Kapadia further submitted that though the statements of some witnesses are said to have been recorded by some police officers, and those statements are said to have been verified by some superior police officers, those statements have not been verified by the Detaining Authority himself and no opinion has been expressed by the authority who recorded the statements or the authority who verified the statements with regard to the statements of the witnesses when they expressed apprehension to their life, limb or property, if their names and addresses were disclosed to the detenu, that part of the statement of the witnesses was genuine. In other words, according to Mr. Kapadia unless either the recording authority or the verifying authority express its opinion about the correctness of the statements of the witnesses who purported to have said that their life or limb or property was in danger if the detenu come to know their names and addresses, the Detaining Authority could not have validly claimed a privilege under Section 9(2) of the Act. Further according to Mr. Kapadia, though in the statements of witnesses the area of operation and the activity of the detenu has been shown to be J.P. Nagar 1, that description was incomplete and vague and' that incompleteness and vagueness in that description has resulted in the denial to the detenu of an affective opportunity of making an effective representation against his detention. 4. Lastly Mr. Kapadia submitted that though the form of the charge sheets in relation to the cases registered against the detenu have been supplied to the detenu, the other papers annexed to those forms of charge sheets have not been supplied to the detenu and the result thereof has been that the detenu has not been able to make effective representation against his detention. Mr. Kapadia elaborating this submission, further argued that not only that along with the grounds of detention the papers accompanying the charge sheets were not supplied to the detenu, but even when the detenu through his Advocate called upon the Detaining Authority to supply such papers, that request has not been acceded to and therefore also there is denial to the detenu of an effective opportunity to make an effective representation. Therefore, in the submission of Mr. Kapadia, the detention order should fail. 5. After having bestowed our anxious attention to the matter, we find that the last submission of Mr. Kapadia immediately deserves acceptance. Therefore we do not propose to decide the other submissions made by Mr. Kapadia. 6. In order to appreciate the last submission of Mr. Kapadia, few relevant facts may be noticed. As stated above, the order of detention is dated October 16, 1992. At the time when the detenu was detained, the grounds of detention were served to him. In the grounds of detention, inter-alia, it has been stated that four crimes have been registered against the detenu. The first is an offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code registered at C.R. No. 397/91. In that connection it has been stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu was arrested in that case and as there was sufficient evidence against him, charge sheet of the case has been filed against him on March 22, 1992, and that the case was pending trial before Criminal Court. The second crime registered against the detenu is at C.R. No. 513/91 for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and in that connection also, in the grounds of detention, it has been stated that as there was sufficient evidence against him, charge sheet of the case has been filed against him on February 18, 1992 and the case was pending trial before Criminal Court. The third case registered against the detenu is at C.R. No. 24/92 for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 504, 452, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In that connection also it has been stated that as there was sufficient evidence against the detenu charge sheet of the case has been filed against him on March 28, 1992 and the case was pending trial before Criminal Court. The fourth case registered against the detenu is at C.R. No. 267/92 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. In that case, the detenu has been in judicial custody and he has not been released on bail. The fourth case registered against the detenu is at C.R. No. 267/92 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. In that case, the detenu has been in judicial custody and he has not been released on bail. In that connection it has further been stated that as there was sufficient evidence against the detenu, the charge sheet of the case has been filed against him on August 31, 1992. 7. Relying upon these statements as they appear in grounds of detention. Mr. Kapadia, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in the grounds of detention the Detaining Authority has very much relied upon the fact that in as many as four crimes registered against the detenu, there was sufficient evidence against him and therefore charge sheet in those cases had been filed against the detenu. However, the grievance of Mr. Kapadia is that though the prescribed forms of the charge sheet as envisaged by Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code have been supplied to the detenu, other papers accompanying the charge sheets as envisaged by Section 173(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code have not been supplied to the detenu and therefore the detenu has not been able to make purposeful and effective representation against his detention. 8. Though the rule has been served, no affidavit-in-reply has been filed. However, Mr. D.N. Pawl, ld. A.P.P. after going through the files of detention very fairly conceded that the papers accompanying the charge sheets in the aforesaid four cases have not been supplied to the detenu.ln other words, it is now an admitted position that the papers accompanying the charge sheets have not been supplied to the detenu. The question is what would he the effect thereof on the detention order and the continued detention of the detenu. 9. In the submission of Mr. Kapadia, the effect of the aforesaid position should be fatal to the detention order and the detenu should be released. On the other hand, Mr. D.N. Patel, the Ld. A.P.P. strenuously submitted that the mere non supply of the papers accompanying the charge sheets would not be sufficient for saying that the detenu has been denied an effective opportunity of making a purposeful representation. On both the sides, various authorities have been relied upon. We will now go to these authorities. D.N. Patel, the Ld. A.P.P. strenuously submitted that the mere non supply of the papers accompanying the charge sheets would not be sufficient for saying that the detenu has been denied an effective opportunity of making a purposeful representation. On both the sides, various authorities have been relied upon. We will now go to these authorities. However, at this juncture, we would say that having bestowed our anxious attention to the matter, we find that the submission of Mr. Kapadia should be accepted. 10. Mr. Kapadia firstly relied upon the decision in the case of The State of Bombay v. Atnuz Ram Shridhar Vaidya ( AIR 1951 SC 157 ), where the six Judges Bench of the Supreme Court posited as follows: "If the representation to be made by the detenu contemplated by Article 22(5) has to be intelligible to meet the charges contained in the grounds, the information conveyed to the detained person must be sufficient to attain that object." In the submission of Mr. Kapadia, though the forms of charge sheets contemplated by Sub- section (2) of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been supplied to the detenu, the annexures to those forms as envisaged by Sub- section (5) of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code having not been supplied to the detenu, the material supplied to the detenu cannot he said to be sufficient to attain the objective envisaged by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 11. Reliance was also placed on Kudiram Das v. The State of West Bengal and Others ( AIR 1975 SC 550 ) where the four Judges Bench of the Supreme Court said that Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the corresponding relevant statutory section insists that all basic facts and particulars which influenced the Detaining Authority in arriving at the requisite satisfaction leading to the making of the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu, so that the detenu may have an opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention. It is, therefore not only the right of the Court but also its duty as well to examine what are the basic facts and materials which actually and in fact weighed with the Detaining Authority in reaching the requisite satisfaction. It is, therefore not only the right of the Court but also its duty as well to examine what are the basic facts and materials which actually and in fact weighed with the Detaining Authority in reaching the requisite satisfaction. The judicial scrutiny cannot be foreclosed by a mere statement of the Detaining Authority that it has taken into account only certain basic facts and materials and though some other basic facts and materials were before it, it has not allowed them to influence its satisfaction. The Court can certainly require the Detaining Authority to produce and make available on the Court the entire record of the case which was before it. If there was before the District Magistrate material against the detenu which was of highly damaging character and having nexus and relevancy with the object of detention, and proximity with the time when the subjective satisfaction forming the basis of the detention order was arrived at, it would be legitimate for the Court to infer that such material must have influenced the District Magistrate in arriving at a subjective satisfaction and in such a case, the Court would refuse to accept the bald statement of the District Magistrate that he did not take such material into account and exclude it from consideration." 12. Relying upon the aforesaid observations, in the case of Khudiram (supra), Mr. Kapadia submitted that though in this case no affidavit in reply has been filed, even if it were to be assumed that on behalf of the Detaining Authority the contention was that it has not allowed its mind to be influenced by the papers accompanying the charge sheets, that contention should not be allowed to prevail, for once the charge sheets in the cases were before the Detaining Authority, it must be held that complete charge sheets were before him, and that would include the papers annexed to the charge sheets, and if those papers were before the Detaining Authority, they must of necessity have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority one way or the other. Mr. Kapadia elaborated by submitting that in one of the four cases, the charge sheet was for an offence of murder. Mr. Kapadia elaborated by submitting that in one of the four cases, the charge sheet was for an offence of murder. If the charge sheet of such a case was before the Detaining Authority, the papers annexed to the charge sheet would certainly furnish highly damaging material, and it would be too presumptuous to say that the Detaining Authority had not allowed his thought process to be influenced by those papers of charge sheet. In our opinion, the submission of Mr. Kapadia is very well founded. When the Detaining Authority as regards all the four cases registered against the detenu has in terms clear stated that as there was sufficient material against him, charge sheets have been filed against him, implied therein would be the statement that the detaining authority has taken into account all that material that led to the filing of the charge sheets. In other words, the detaining authority must have taken into account the papers annexure 'd to the charge sheets. Those papers may be statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They may be Panchnamas, they may be reports of Forensic Science Laboratory, they may he seizure memos, or they may he other papers of investigation. But once those papers were before the Detaining Authority (they must be before him) it has got to be said that those papers must have influenced the thought process of the Detaining Authority in arriving at a subjective satisfaction, one way or the other. That having been done, non supply of the papers accompanying the charge sheets to the detenu would certainly withhold from the detenu an eff active opportunity of making a purposeful representation against the detention order and showing to the higher authorities that the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction was in fact not a genuine satisfaction. That opportunity having been withheld from the detenu, we are more than convinced that Mr. Kapadia is right in submitting that the detention order should fail. 13. The decision in the case of Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India ( AIR 1980 SC 1983 ) was also pressed into service by Mr. Kapadia. That opportunity having been withheld from the detenu, we are more than convinced that Mr. Kapadia is right in submitting that the detention order should fail. 13. The decision in the case of Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India ( AIR 1980 SC 1983 ) was also pressed into service by Mr. Kapadia. In that decision also it has been enunciated that when Clause (5) of Article 22 and Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act provide that the grounds of detention should be communicated to the detenu within five or fifteen days, as the case may be, what is meant is that the grounds of detention in their entirety must be furnished to the detenu. If there are any documents, statements, or other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention, they must also be communicated to the detenu because being incorporated in the grounds of detention, they formed part of the grounds and the grounds furnished to the detenu cannot be said to be complete without them. It would therefore not be sufficient to communicate to the detenu a bear recital of the grounds of detention, but copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention must also be furnished to the detenu within the prescribed time subject of course to Clause (6) of Article 22 in order of constitute compliance with Clause (5) of Article 22 and Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. If these requirements of Clause (5) of Article 22 read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act are not satisfied, the continued detention of the detenu would be illegal and void. The decision in the case of Ichhu Devi (supra) also lend support to the submission of Mr. Kapadia. 14. Nextly, Mr. Kapadia very vehemently relied upon the decision in the case of Ramachandra A. Kamat v. Union of India & Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 270 . There was a special reason for Mr. Kapadia to be vehement in his reliance upon this decision for the fact,. of the instant case in so far as their relevance for the submission of Mr. Kapadia are very much akin to the facts in the ease of Ramachandra A. Kanat v. Union of India (supra). Just as in the present case, as we will presently point out, the detenu through his Advocate Mr. of the instant case in so far as their relevance for the submission of Mr. Kapadia are very much akin to the facts in the ease of Ramachandra A. Kanat v. Union of India (supra). Just as in the present case, as we will presently point out, the detenu through his Advocate Mr. Kapadia had called upon the Detaining Authority to supply to the detenu the papers accompanying the charge sheet, in Kanrath's case also a similar request, albeit for some other papers, was made, and it was not complied with within the statutory period. In that context, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kamath's case in paragraph 6 of the report said, "The right to make a representation is a fundamental right. The representation thus made should he considered expeditiously by the Government. In order to make an effective representation, the detenu is entitled to obtain in- formation relating to the grounds of detention. When the grounds of detention are served on the detenu, he is entitled to ask for copies of the statements and documents referred to in the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation. When the detenu makes a request for such documents, they should be supplied to him expeditiously. The Detaining Authority in preparing the grounds would have referred to the statements and documents relied on in the grounds of detention and would be ordinarily available with him -when copies of such documents are asked for by the detenu the Detaining Authority should be in a position to supply them with reasonable expedition." In Kanmt's case, on behalf of the Detaining Authority, it was sought to be argued that it was not incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to supply the copies of all the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention to the detenu along with the grounds within five days of detention. In that context, it was further contended that the grounds were sufficiently detailed so as to enable the detenu to make an effective representation against the detention. That Contention was in terms negatived by their Lordships. In that context, it was further contended that the grounds were sufficiently detailed so as to enable the detenu to make an effective representation against the detention. That Contention was in terms negatived by their Lordships. Their Lordships in that connection said, "It may not be necessary for the Detaining Authority to supply copies of all the document, relied upon in the grounds of detention at the time when the grounds are furnished to the detenu but once the detenu states that for effective representation, it is necessary that he should have copies of the statements and documents referred in the grounds of detention, it is the duty of the Detaining Authority to furnish them with reasonable expedition. The Detaining Authority cannot decline to furnish copies of the documents on the ground that the grounds were sufficiently detailed to enable the detenu to make an effective representation." August 4, 1993 15. In the case of Smt. Aabedabeguar W/o Usman Aboobakar Mulla v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (22 (1981) GLR 177), Division Bench of this High Court has held as follows: "The right to make an effective representation carries with it the right to get copies of documents which were before the Detaining Authority at the time when the order of detention was passed or, which have been taken into account while preparing the grounds of detention. It is possible that in the instant case, out of the 691 pages only some documents were relied upon by the State Government at the time of passing the order of detention and furnishing the grounds of detention. But what must be emphasised is that the right to make an effective representation against the order of detention will be encroached upon and to that extent rendered nugatory if copies of all documents which have been taken into account while preparing the grounds of detention are not furnished to the detenu. Whether a detenu has made a demand for such copies or not is a totally secondary factor. What counts is the placing at the disposal of the detenu concerned all documents which have been taken into account while preparing the grounds of detention so that from those documents and from that material the detenu can point out materials or factors which are favour able to himself. What counts is the placing at the disposal of the detenu concerned all documents which have been taken into account while preparing the grounds of detention so that from those documents and from that material the detenu can point out materials or factors which are favour able to himself. It is only furnishing of copies of documents which have been taken into account while preparing the grounds of detention which will render the right to make a representation effective and it is only then that an effective representation can he made. If the right to make an effective representation conferred by Art. 22(5) of the Constitution is not to wither away because of indifference and red-tapism in the Government Department, it must he obligatory on the Detaining Authority to furnish to the detenu copies of all documents which have been taken into account while passing the order of detention and preparing the grounds of detention." After making observations to the aforesaid effect in Para 21 of the judgment under reference, the Division Bench in Para 22 of the report once again reiterated the principle in the following words: "In our opinion, whether demanded or not, as a matter of law there is an obligation on the Detaining Authority to furnish those copies to the detenu. Otherwise it is likely that a detenu who may not he aware of his right to ask for such documents may be denied the right to make an effective representation which is the fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution." 16. In the case of Kirit Kumar Chanianlal Kundaliya v. Union of India & Ors. ( AIR 1981 SC 1621 ), before the High Court on behalf of the detenu it was contended that as the two documents referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to him, the detention should fail. The High Court rejected this contention on the ground that the documents were merely referred to and not relied on by the Detaining Authority and after having examined the documents it found that the same were not relevant. When the matter went to the Supreme Court, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while disapproving the approach of the High Court observed as follows: "With due respect to the judges, we are unable to agree with the view taken by them. When the matter went to the Supreme Court, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while disapproving the approach of the High Court observed as follows: "With due respect to the judges, we are unable to agree with the view taken by them. In the first place, it was not open to the Court to have waded through the confidential file of the Government in order to fish out a point against the detenu. Secondly, the question of relevance was not to be decided by the Court but by the Detaining Authority which alone had to consider the representation of the detenu on merits and then come to the conclusion whether it should he accepted or rejected. As the reasoning of the High Court, was legally erroneous, the order of the High Court cannot be allowed to stand and is hereby quashed." After holding as above in Para 11 of the report, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Para 12 examined the contention which was raised on behalf of the Detaining Authority that the documents concerned were merely referred to in the grounds of detention but did not form the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority at the time when he passed the order of detention. Before the Supreme Court it was of course conceded on behalf of the Detaining Authority that before the grounds were served on the petitioner, the documents concerned were placed before the Detaining Authority and were there fere referred to in the grounds of detention. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court said that it was manifest therefore that the subjective satisfaction could only be ascertained from or reflected in the grounds of detention passed against the detenu. Otherwise, without giving the grounds, the mere subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority would make the order of detention incomplete and ineffective. Once the documents are referred to in the grounds of detention, said the Supreme Court, it becomes the bounden duty of the Detaining Authority to supply the same to the detenu as part of the grounds or pari pasu the grounds of detention. Once the documents are referred to in the grounds of detention, said the Supreme Court, it becomes the bounden duty of the Detaining Authority to supply the same to the detenu as part of the grounds or pari pasu the grounds of detention. The Supreme Court further observed that there is no particular charm in the expressions, "relief upon", "referred to", or "based on", because ultimately all these expressions signify one thing, namely that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority has been arrived at on the documents mentioned in the grounds of detention. The question is whether the grounds have been referred to, relied on or based on is merely a matter of describing the nature of the grounds. After holding as aforesaid, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kundaliga's (supra) case, referred to the decision in the case of Ramchandra A. Kaurat (supra) and said that even in Kamat's case, it has clearly been held that even the documents referred to in the grounds of detention have to be furnished to the detenu. Their Lordships, then further referred to the decision in the case of Tusha,'Thakkar v. Union of India ( AIR 1981 SC 436 ), where also it was held that the detenu has a constitutional right under Article 22(5) to be furnished with copies of all the materials relied upon or referred to in the grounds of detention with reasonable expedition. 17. In the case of Mehrunissa v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1981 SC 1861 ), the contention was that the copies of the material documents referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu and he was thus prevented from making an effective representation. The documents about which the complaint was made were the panchnama dated January 15, 1980 said to have been recorded at the time of the seizure of the silver and the statement said to have been made by the detenu in the enquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Acton January 15, 1980. On behalf of the detenu in furtherance of the aforesaid submission, reliance was placed upon the decisions in the case of Ichhu Devi (supra) and in the case of Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India ( AIR 1981 SC 431 ). On behalf of the detenu in furtherance of the aforesaid submission, reliance was placed upon the decisions in the case of Ichhu Devi (supra) and in the case of Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India ( AIR 1981 SC 431 ). On behalf of the Detaining Authority and the State authorities, the argument was sought to be met by contending that the copies of the documents were not supplied to the detenu as the detenu was already aware of the contents of the documents. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that was hardly an answer to the submission made on behalf of the detenu. In the opinion of Their Lordships, the detenu was entitled to be supplied with the copies of all material documents instead of having to rely upon his memory in regard to the contents of the documents. The failure of the Detaining Authority to supply copies of such documents in the opinion of Their Lordships, vitiated the detention as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Ichhu Devi (supra) and Stitt. Shalini Soni. 18. Mr. Kapadia, Learned Advocate for the petitioner very heavily relied upon the decision in the case of Mohd. Hussain v. Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, reported in 1982 Criminal Law Journal, Page 1848. In that case, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Sawant, J. (as His Lordship then was) and Kurdukar, J. has analysed quite a large number of cases bearing on the point with which we are concerned in this petition. In that case, one of the grievances on behalf of the detenu was that the letter and the card taken possession of from the detenu under a Panchnama on recovery of the same dated June 13, 1981 had not been supplied to the detenu and even the documents referred to in the Panchnama were not supplied to the detenu and as those documents were not supplied to the there was an infraction of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution inasmuch as it should be held that it prevented the detenu from making an effective representation. In order to determine the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the detenu, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has referred a number of decisions bearing on the point. The Division Bench referred to the following decisions: 1. In order to determine the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the detenu, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has referred a number of decisions bearing on the point. The Division Bench referred to the following decisions: 1. Ramachandra A. Kaniat (supra); 2. Smt. Ichhu Devi (supra); 3. Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India ( AIR 1981 SC 431 ); 4. Guidipsingh's case ( AIR 1981 SC 362 ); 5. Kirit Kumar Kundaliya's case (supra); 7. Mst. LM. S. Ummusaleema's case ( AIR 1981 SC 1191 ); 8. Wasi Uddin Ahnred's case ( AIR 1981 SC 2166 ) and some other cases. We may mention here that Mr. D.N. Patel, Ld. A.P.P. also relied upon before us on the decisions in the case of Mst. L.M.S. Ummusaleema and wasi Uddin Ahmed case. We will presently deal with the contention of Mr. D.N. Patel based on those two decision. For the present we only take note of the fact that the decision in the case of Mst. L.M.S. Ummusaleema and that in the case of Wasi Uddin Ahmed have been referred to and discussed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. After considering the aforesaid judgments, the Division Bench has drawn the conclusions which it would be advantageous to excerpt as follows: "We may therefore summarise the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the point as follows : (a) The copies of all the documents which are relied upon in or which form the basis of, the grounds of detention must be supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention; (b) The documents which are not relied upon or do not form the basis of the detention order but which are merely referred to casually or incidentally as and by way of narration of facts in the grounds of detention need not be applied to the detenu; (c) However, even such documents, if the detenu requests for the same, have to be supplied to him, for whether they are relevant to his defence or not is for the detenu to decide and not for the Detaining Authority to judge." Thus, there are the three propositions of law deduced by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on a resume of various judgments of the Supreme Court bearing on the point. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court where the Division Bench has deduced the aforesaid three propositions. It appears to us that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was required to undertake the aforesaid exercise as in some of the cases, the expression used was "documents relied upon", in others the expression was "documents referred to", and yet in some others, the expression was "grounds of detention are based on". Thus different types of expressions came to be used in different judgments. In Kundaliya's (supra) case, Their Lord- ships of the Supreme Court in para 12 of the report clearly observed that there is no particular charm in the expressions, "relied upon", "referred to", or "based on" because ultimately all these expressions signify one thing, namely, that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority has been arrived at on the documents mentioned in the grounds of detention. In some other authorities, it was stated that the documents have only been passingly referred to and yet in some other authorities it was stated that there was only casual reference to the documents. The use of these different expressions led to a sort of confusion and in order to clear that confusion, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Hussain (supra) took the resume of all the authorities on the point and said that so far as documents which are relied upon by the Detaining Authority for drawing the grounds of detention or the documents which formed the basis for the grounds, the Detaining Authority must supply to the detenu those documents along with the grounds of detention. The other class of documents as deduced by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court would comprise the documents which are not relied upon ordo not form the basis of the detention order but which are merely referred to casually or incidentally and by way of narration of facts in the grounds of detention. The other class of documents as deduced by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court would comprise the documents which are not relied upon ordo not form the basis of the detention order but which are merely referred to casually or incidentally and by way of narration of facts in the grounds of detention. Such documents need not be supplied to the detenu in ordinary course, But by way of third proposition, the Division Bench enunciated that if the detenu demands such documents i.e., second class of the documents, then, the Detaining Authority has got to supply even those documents to the detenu, for whether those documents are relevant to the defence of the detenu is not for the Detaining Authority to judge but for the detenu to decide. 19. Mr. Kapadia lastly relied upon the decision in the case of Jeeva Veiyapuri Madrasi Commissioner of Police and Another ( 1991(1) GLH 346 ). That is a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered by our Learned Brethren B.S. Kapadia & Y.B. Bhatt, JJ. In that judgment also it has been emphasised that if the charge sheet in a criminal case registered against the detenu has been placed before the Detaining Authority, then, the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 in connection with the case so could also he placed before the Detaining Authority, for the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be useful either for requiring the Sponsoring Authority for proposing to detain the detenu and the Detaining Authority would then have sufficient material on his hand provided the statements recorded by police under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code are supplied to him and without referring to those statements one could not say whether they were or were not relevant. Those statements would be relevant for reinforcing the proposal for detention or making out a good case for the detenu for arguing that he should not be detained. Those statements as pointed out by the Division Bench would affect the mind of the Detaining Authority one way or the other. Therefore the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 cannot be said to be irrelevant. Now, this judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court also lends support to the submission of Mr. Kapadia. 20. Those statements as pointed out by the Division Bench would affect the mind of the Detaining Authority one way or the other. Therefore the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 cannot be said to be irrelevant. Now, this judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court also lends support to the submission of Mr. Kapadia. 20. Now coming to the facts of the case before us, as indicated by us herein above, there were four cases registered against the detenu. In relation to each of those four cases, the Detaining Authority has, in the grounds of detention, in terms clear and explicit, stated that as there was sufficient evidence against the detenu, charge sheet had been filed against him. This statement appearing in the grounds of detention in relation- to each of the four cases registered against the detenu clearly shows the mind of the Detaining Authority. The statement shows that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that there was sufficient evidence against the detenu and it was therefore, that in all the four cases, charge sheets had been filed against the detenu. Now, when the Detaining Authority speaks of there being sufficient evidence against the detenu, and therefore the charge sheet having been filed against the detenu, it goes without saying that the Detaining Authority has taken into account, the evidence which ultimately led to the filing of the charge sheets against him. To put it differently, the papers annexed to the charge sheet, envisaged by Section 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were before the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority considered those papers, and yet the copies of those papers, admittedly have not been supplied to the detenu, along with the grounds of detention. The matter does not end there. It is not in dispute that the detenu through his Advocate Mr. Kapadia by a communication dated January 28, 1993 addressed to the Detaining Authority inter alia made a grievance of the fact that all the papers of charge sheet including the statements of the witnesses, statements of officers, Panchnama of the incident, F.S.L. reports etc. in fact have not been given to the detenu. Having voiced this grievance in the communication addressed by the detenu through his Advocate to the Detaining Authority, a request was made by Mr. Kapadia to the Detaining Authority to supply those papers to the detenu. in fact have not been given to the detenu. Having voiced this grievance in the communication addressed by the detenu through his Advocate to the Detaining Authority, a request was made by Mr. Kapadia to the Detaining Authority to supply those papers to the detenu. To quote from the communication this is what Mr. Kapadia wrote to the Detaining Authority. "You are requested to supply following particulars /documents so as to enable my client to make an effective representation: (a) all the papers of charge sheet including statements of witnesses, statements of officers, Panchnama of the incident and F.S.L. reports of all the cases shown pending trial in the grounds of detention." That the detenu through his Advocate Mr. Kapadia addressed this communication dated 28 January, 1993 to the Detaining Authority is a fact which is not in dispute. It is equally not in dispute that the Detaining Authority has neither replied to this communication nor has he complied with the request as aforesaid made to him. In other words, the request of the detenu made to the Detaining Authority that he should be supplied with the documents mentioned herein above fell on deaf cars. Therefore it is not as if that the Detaining Authority failed only in the first instance when it did not supply the copies of the papers annexed to the charge sheet when the detention order was served to the detenu and the grounds of detention were served to him at that time. But even thereafter when a specific demand for those papers was made, that demand was not met. The papers annexed to the charge sheet, in our opinion, were certain relevant, for as shown herein above, those papers had gone into or must .have necessarily gone into the decision making process at the end of the Detaining Authority for the need to detain the detenu. The Detaining Authority has in so many words stated that there was sufficient evidence against the detenu and therefore charge sheets had been filed against him. Coming to the statutory setting, a reference is required to he made to Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The head note or the marginal note of that section reads "Cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient". Coming to the statutory setting, a reference is required to he made to Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The head note or the marginal note of that section reads "Cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient". The relevant part of the section says that if upon an investigation under this chapter it appears to the officer in charge of the Police Station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial..... This section makes it clear that once Investigating officer finds sufficient evidence against a person, he has to sent that person for trial before the Magistrate and he has to submit a report. The report is envisaged by Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub (2) of Section 173 speaks of certain particulars to be furnished in that report in a form to be prescribed by the State Government That form is popularly known as a charge sheet. Sub- section (5) of Section 173 speaks of other documents which the police officer has to furnish to the Magistrate along with the report contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 173. Those other documents would include all the documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation and the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. Thus the police officer who sends the report to the Magistrate as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure has also to furnish to the Magistrate other documents including the statements of witnesses recorded by him under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has also to send to the Magistrate the panchnamas and other documents to be relied upon by the prosecution agency against the accused at the trial. These documents have to accompany the report in the form as contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 173, a report which is popularly known as charge sheet. The papers mentioned in Sub- section (5) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure are popularly known as papers annexed to the charge sheet. These documents have to accompany the report in the form as contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 173, a report which is popularly known as charge sheet. The papers mentioned in Sub- section (5) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure are popularly known as papers annexed to the charge sheet. The report and the papers have to be sent to the Magistrate by the police officer concerned, only if he finds sufficient evidence against the accused. In other words, once the police officer finds sufficient material against the accused, he has to submit a report along with the papers to be annexed to the charge sheet. In the present case, the Detaining Authority has at places as many as four, that is in relation to each of the four criminal cases, inter alia distinctly stated that as there was sufficient evidence against the detenu, charge-sheets have been filed. This would be in conformity with the provisions contained in Sections 170 and 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore there can be no denying that the Detaining Authority has taken into account the papers annexed to the charge sheets and yet the copies thereof have not been supplied to the detenu. That would certainly tantamount to denying to the detenu an effective opportunity of making a purposeful representation. Even when the detenu through his Advocate made a demand for those papers, so far those papers have not been supplied to him. This position is not in dispute. Therefore also, going by the propositions of law, as they emerged from the judgments referred to by us herein above, it has got to he said that on account of the copies of the papers annexed to the charge sheets not having been supplied to the detenu, he has been denied an opportunity of making effective representation against the detention order and his continued detention. 21. On behalf of the Detaining Authority Mr. D.N. Patel, Ld. A.P.P. very strenuously con- tended that what is relied upon by the Detaining Authority is a charge sheet only and not the papers annexed to the charge sheet and there- fore the Detaining Authority was not obliged to supply to the detenu the papers annexed to the charge sheet. The second line of argument of Mr. D.N. Patel, Ld. A.P.P. very strenuously con- tended that what is relied upon by the Detaining Authority is a charge sheet only and not the papers annexed to the charge sheet and there- fore the Detaining Authority was not obliged to supply to the detenu the papers annexed to the charge sheet. The second line of argument of Mr. Patel was that merely because the detenu through his Advocate demanded those papers, the Detaining Authority was not obliged to supply to the detenu those papers. According to Mr. Patel, the papers that have been supplied to the detenu, namely, the forms of the charge sheets as contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure were sufficient for enabling the detenu to make a purposeful and effective representation and therefore non supply of the copies of the papers annexed to the charge sheets would not vitiated either the detention order or the continued detention of the detenu. Mr. Patel tried to submit that it is for the Detaining Authority to determine as to whether the papers demanded by the detenu are or are not relevant. 22. Mr. D.N. Patel, Ld. A.P.P. in support of his submission, firstly relied upon the decision in the case of Vakil Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Another ( AIR 1974 SC 2337 ). In that judgment, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have said that the "grounds" within the contemplation of Section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act means materials on which the order of detention is primarily based. Apart from conclusions of facts, the grounds have a factual constituent also. They must contain the pith and substance of primary facts and not subsidiary fats or evidential details. Relying upon this holding of the Supreme Court in Vakil Singh's case. Mr. Patel submitted that the Detaining Authority has to supply to the detenu is the primary facts and not the subsidiary details or the evidential details and in that view of the matter, according to Mr. Patel, it was sufficient for the Detaining Authority to supply to the detenu the form of charge sheet envisaged by Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the documents envisaged by Sub-section (5) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure would be evidential details which are not required to be supplied to the detenu. Patel, it was sufficient for the Detaining Authority to supply to the detenu the form of charge sheet envisaged by Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the documents envisaged by Sub-section (5) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure would be evidential details which are not required to be supplied to the detenu. Having gone through the judgment in Vakil Singh's case, we are afraid, it is not possible for us to accept the submission of Mr. Patel. In Vakil Singh's case, the detention was made on the ground of espionage and the basic facts as distinguished from the factual details were incorporated in the material communicated to the detenu and he was told the name of the notorious PAK agent and courier, through whom he was supplying the information about the Indian Army and was further informed about the places in Pakistan which he was visiting and that in lieu of the supply of this information, he was receiving money from Pakistan. On those facts, the Supreme Court said that nothing more was required to be intimated to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation. The facts of Vakil Singh's case are entirely different. There, sufficient details were given to the detenu so as to enable him to make effective representation. Here in the case before us, admittedly none of the papers, being the enclosures or accompaniments to the charge sheets have been supplied to the detenu. Vakil Singh's case has therefore no assistance to render to Mr. Patel's submission. 23. Mr. Patel then relied upon the decision in the case of Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral & Another (1981 SC 1191). In that case, it was contended on behalf of the detenu that the Detaining Authority was under an obligation to supply along with the grounds, copies of documents to which reference was made in the grounds irrespective of whether such documents were or were not relied upon in making the order of detention. It was submitted on behalf of the detenu that the very fact that the documents were mentioned in the grounds established that the documents were relied upon in making the order of detention. It was submitted on behalf of the detenu that the very fact that the documents were mentioned in the grounds established that the documents were relied upon in making the order of detention. Turning down that submission, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court said that it was true that in some cases it was observed that the copies of the documents to which reference was made in the grounds must be supplied to the detenu as a part of the grounds Shalini Soni v. Union of India). However, Their Lordships said that this observation must be read in the context in which they were made. In Shalini Soni's case, according to Their Lord- ships, the observations were made immediately after stating that "grounds" in Article 22(5) did not mean mere factual inferences but meant factual inferences plus factual material which led to such factual Inferences. Then the case of Ichhu Devi (supra) was also referred, wherein it has been held "It is difficult to say how the detenu can possibly make an effective representation unless he is also furnished with the copies of documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention." According to the There Judges Bench of the Supreme Court which decided Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema's case, in Ichhu Devi's case, the stress was upon the words "relied on". Then the decision in the case of Khudiram (supra) came to be referred to and in that connection, the Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court said that in 1(hudirarn's case, the constitutional requirement of Article 22(5) was stated as insistence that basic facts and particulars which influenced the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite satisfaction leading to the making of the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu so that the detenu may have an opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention. It is therefore clear that every failure to furnish copy of a document to which a reference is made in the grounds of detention is not an infringement of Article 22(5). The Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, then proceeded to say that it was unnecessary to furnish copies of documents to which casual or passing reference maybe made in the course of narration of facts and which are not relied upon by the Detaining Authority in making the order of detention. The Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, then proceeded to say that it was unnecessary to furnish copies of documents to which casual or passing reference maybe made in the course of narration of facts and which are not relied upon by the Detaining Authority in making the order of detention. In the opinion of the Three Judges Bench, the two documents which were not supplied to the detenu and in relation to which grievance was made fell within that category. 24. As stated above, the decision in the case of Mst. LM.S. Ummu Saleema (supra) has been referred to by the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Hussain (1982 Criminal Law Journal 1418). That reference is to be found at Para 15 of the report. It is not necessary for us to repeat all what has been said by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in para 15 of the report in the aforesaid case. Suffice it would be for us to say that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has dwelt at length on the decision in the case of Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema (supra) and in conjunction with other cases referred to by the Division Bench, that Court has drawn the deductions and conclusions to which we have adverted to herein above. Having read the decision in Ummu Saleema's case, we do not find that it has anything in common with the facts of the case before us, firstly for the reason that as indicated herein above, the annexures to the charge sheets in the four cases either well before the Detaining Authority or must have been before the Detaining Authority, otherwise, it would not have been possible for him to say that charge sheets had been filed against the detenu as there was sufficient evidence against him. And once those papers were before him, the Detaining Authority was bound to consider them, and he having considered them, it was incumbent upon him to supply copies thereof to the detenu along with grounds of detention. At any rate, the Detaining Authority was certainly duty bound to supply those copies to the detenu when a request for supply of the same was made by the detenu through his Advocates communication dated January 28, 1993. At any rate, the Detaining Authority was certainly duty bound to supply those copies to the detenu when a request for supply of the same was made by the detenu through his Advocates communication dated January 28, 1993. That request having not been complied with, we are more than convinced that the detenu was denied an effective opportunity of making a purposeful representation against the detention order and his continued detention. 25. Mr. D.N. Patel, Ld. A.P.P. also relied upon the decision in the case of Wasi Uddin Ahmed v. The District Magistmte, Aligarh, UP. and Others ( AIR 1981 SC 2166 ). of course in that judgment it has been held that "Where the District Magistrate relied on criminal case in which the detenu was convicted and certain cases pending against him, no grievance could be made as to violation of rights under Art. 22(5) for non supply of copies of First Information Reports in those cases when under Sub-section (5) of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the detenu had already been supplied with all the documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution relied in the criminal case in which he was convicted as well as on which the prosecution proposes to rely in the three criminal cases pending against him. There was therefore, no need to supply the copies of the First Information Reports referred to in the grounds of detention over again, and no grievance can be made that the detenu was deprived of the right of making a representation at the earliest opportunity due to non-supply of those documents." Now, this decision in the case of Wasi Uddin Ahmed has also been referred to by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Mohd. Hussain's case (supra). The reference is to be found at para 16 of the report, and the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has extracted the relevant portion from para 15 in Wasi Uddin Ahmed case as follows: "In a series of decisions, this Court has, on a construction of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution, read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Cof EPOSA Act, held that the right of making an effective representation carries with it the right to copies of documents relied upon in the grounds of detention. Factual contents of the grounds of detention on which the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was based have to be disclosed to the detenu to make an effective representation. It is, however, not necessary to furnish copies of documents to which casual or passing reference may be made in the course of narration of events and which are not relied upon by the Detaining Authority in making the order of detention." Now going by the aforesaid proposition as it emerges from pars 15 in Wasi Uddin Ahmed's case and applying it to the facts of the case before us, by no stretch of reasoning, it can be said that the Detaining Authority has only casually or passingly referred to the factum of the charge sheets having been filed against the detenu on account of the fact that there was sufficient evidence against the detenu. The reference was an intended reference. It was with a view to relying upon the fact that there was sufficient evidence against the detenu in each of the four cases showing his involvement in the criminal activities and it was therefore that the charge sheets had been filed against him. This aspect of the matter has in terms been taken into account by the Detaining Authority for reaching the subjective satisfaction for the need to detain the detenu. It has got therefore, to be said that the Detaining Authority has relied upon these documents and he has not merely casually or passingly referred to the fact that the charge sheets had been filed against the detenu. Considering the matter from that angle, the decision in Wasiuddin Ahmed's case cannot come in the way of the detenu in submitting that his right to make effective representation has been jeopardised on account of the copies of the papers annexed to the charge sheets having not been supplied to him. 26. Mr. D.N. Patel, Ld. APP. nextly relied upon the decision in the case of Abdulsattar Abdulkadar Shaikh v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1990) 1 SCC, 480. Firstly this judgment is distinguishable on facts for in the last four lines of para 8 of the report, the Supreme Court has said: "Incidentally we may mention that it is not the case of the petitioner that the documents mentioned or referred to in the grounds are not supplied. reported in (1990) 1 SCC, 480. Firstly this judgment is distinguishable on facts for in the last four lines of para 8 of the report, the Supreme Court has said: "Incidentally we may mention that it is not the case of the petitioner that the documents mentioned or referred to in the grounds are not supplied. But the grievance of the petitioner is that the documents which he wanted have not been supplied and the same is illegal." In the case on hand before us, the documents which have not been supplied to the detenu about which a grievance is made by him, have very much been relies' upon by the Detaining Authority as is clear from the fact that in relation to all the four criminal cases, the Detaining Authority has said that 'as there was sufficient evidence against you, charge-sheet of the case has been filed against you'. Thus, though the documents were very much relied upon, the copies thereof have not been supplied to the detenu. Such was not the position in the case of Abdul Sattar Shaikh (supra). Secondly, Abdul Sattar's case before the Supreme Court was the second innings that was played by the detenu as his earlier Writ Petition No. 302/89 had been dismissed, and Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, on facts found that the detenu had not been hampered in the matter of making effective representation on the ground of non-supply of the documents about which a grievance was made by the detenu. In the penultimate line of para 12 of the report in Abdul Sattar's case, Their Lordships said: "Therefore, we do not see any bona fides in this plea of his." Thus, Abdul Sattar's case is distinguishable on facts from the case on hand before us, on various grounds. Thirdly, in the judgment in Abdul Sattar's case, the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohd. Hussain (supra) has been referred to. In para 10 of the report, after saying that all these decisions (the decisions bearing on the point) have been referred to by Sawant, J., Their Lordships have excerpted the three deductions (a), (b) and (c) from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court which we have excerpted in para 18 of this judgment herein above. In para 10 of the report, after saying that all these decisions (the decisions bearing on the point) have been referred to by Sawant, J., Their Lordships have excerpted the three deductions (a), (b) and (c) from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court which we have excerpted in para 18 of this judgment herein above. The fact that in Abdul Sattar's case, no dissent has been expressed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court to the three deductions drawn by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Mohd. Hussain's case (supra) would go to show that Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Abdul Sattar's case have found the three deductions culled out by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court to be unexceptionable. We have also herein above, stated that we are in respectful agreement with what the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has said in those three propositions. Therefore, even the decision in the case of Abdul Sattar upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. D.N. Patel can- not come in the way of the detenu in making a grievance that has been voiced in this petition. 27. Mr. Patel, the Ld. A.P.P. nextly relied upon the decision in the case of . Mr. Patel in particular relied upon the observations of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 14 of the report where Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have said as follows: "It is not sufficient to say that the detenus were not supplied the copies of the documents in time on demand but it must further be shown that the non supply has impaired the detenu's right to make an effective and purposeful representation. Demand of any or every document, however irrelevant it may be for the concerned detenu, merely on the ground that there is a reference thereto in the grounds of detention cannot vitiate an otherwise legal detention order. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but what is essential is that the detenu must show that the failure to supply the documents before the meeting of the Advisory Board had impaired or prejudiced his right, however slight or insignificant it may be. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but what is essential is that the detenu must show that the failure to supply the documents before the meeting of the Advisory Board had impaired or prejudiced his right, however slight or insignificant it may be. In the present case, except stating that the documents were not supplied before the meeting of the Advisory Board, there is no pleading that it had resulted in the impairment of his right nor could Counsel for the petitioners point out any such prejudice. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the Bombay High Court in this behalf is unassailable." In the submission of Mr. D.N. Patel, this judgment in Kamarunnisas case holds that the unsatisfied demand of any and every document however irrelevant it may be for the concerned detenu, merely on the ground that there is reference thereto in the grounds of detention cannot vitiate the otherwise legal detention order. According to Mr. Patel in the present case, the demand by the detenu of supply of copies of the annexures to the charge sheets was a demand for irrelevant documents. Therefore, the Detaining Authority was not supposed to supply those papers to the detenu. We are not able to subscribe to the submission of Mr. Patel for the simple reason that as indicated herein above, the copies of the papers annexed to the charge sheets were extremely relevant in the present case. Those papers had been or must have been considered by the Detaining Authority for arriving at the subjective satisfaction for the need to detain the detenu. That being the position, those papers cannot be said to be irrelevant. True, if the detenu demands papers which are absolutely irrelevant, the Detaining Authority can very well refuse to supply those papers to the detenu. But if the papers demanded by the detenu are in some manner relevant to the case, then, the Detaining Authority is bound to supply those papers to the detenu on a demand for the same coming from the detenu if even a passing reference has been made to those papers in the grounds of detention. But if the papers demanded by the detenu are in some manner relevant to the case, then, the Detaining Authority is bound to supply those papers to the detenu on a demand for the same coming from the detenu if even a passing reference has been made to those papers in the grounds of detention. This is exactly what has been culled out by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court referred to by us herein above to which even after a specific reference made by the Supreme Court in Abdulsattar's case (supra) no exception has been taken. In that view of the matter, Kamunarunnisa's case has also nothing which can come in the way of the detenu or the petitioner in the present case. 28. Lastly, Mr. D.N. Patel relied upon the decision in the case of Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and Others ( AIR 1991 SC 2261 ). In that case, the grievance made by the detenu was that the vital documents, namely, the bail application and the order refusing bail were not placed before the Detaining Authority and the copies thereof had not been supplied to the detenu. Negativing the grievance, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court said that as those papers were neither referred to nor relied upon in the grounds of detention and as the bail was refused to the detenu, it was not necessary to supply those papers to the detenu. In our opinion, a distinction has got to be drawn between an order by which bail has been granted to the detenu and the order by which his bail application has been rejected or refused. If the bail is granted to the detenu, the detenu can well make use of that order for canvassing before the higher authorities that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is not genuine for in face of a serious allegation against him, a competent Criminal Court has released him on bail. But if bail has been refused to him such an argument would not open to the detenu. Therefore, if the orders refusing bail have not been referred to or relied upon in the grounds of detention and consequently copies thereof have not been supplied to the detenu, that would stand materially on a different footing, than a case wherein bail has been granted to the detenu. Therefore, if the orders refusing bail have not been referred to or relied upon in the grounds of detention and consequently copies thereof have not been supplied to the detenu, that would stand materially on a different footing, than a case wherein bail has been granted to the detenu. Viewed from that angle, the decision in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik's case also does not render any assistance to Mr. Patel's submission for here in this case we are not concerned with an order refusing bail having not been supplied to the detenu. 29. Having considering the authorities cited by Shri Kapadia, learned Advocate for the petitioner on one hand and those cited by Mr. D.N. Patel, the Ld. A.P.P. on the other and applying the ratio of those cases to the facts of the case before us, firstly it has got to be said that in the present case, the Detaining Authority had or must have considered the facts appearing in the papers annexed to the charge sheets and therefore he must be said to have relied upon those facts and consequently he was obliged to supply to the detenu the copies of those papers along with the grounds of detention. That having not been done, there is infraction of the mandatory requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the corresponding provision contained in Section 9(1) of the Act. 30. Taking the view most favour able to the Detaining Authority, it has got to be said that at any rate when the detenu through his Advocate Mr. Kapadia made a demand for those papers, the Detaining Authority was bound to supply those papers to the detenu and that demand having not been met, the detenu has been denied an opportunity to make an effective and purposeful representation against the detention order and his continued detention, and in that view of the matter also, the detention order should fail and the continued detention of the detenu should come to an end. 31. Before we part with his judgment, we would like to refer to the second submission of Mr. Patel, Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Patel tried to rely upon Section 6 of the Act which speaks about sever ability of the grounds of detention. Having read Section 6 of the Act, we are convinced it has nothing to assist the submission of Mr. Before we part with his judgment, we would like to refer to the second submission of Mr. Patel, Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Patel tried to rely upon Section 6 of the Act which speaks about sever ability of the grounds of detention. Having read Section 6 of the Act, we are convinced it has nothing to assist the submission of Mr. Patel for this is not a case where though the detention order would fail on the ground of non supply of the copies of the papers annexed to the charge sheet to the detenu, it could still be supported on some other ground. According to Mr. Patel, assuming that the facts about the four criminal cases lodged against the detenu are kept out of consideration on account of the fact that the copies of the papers annexed to the charge sheets have not been supplied to the detenu, the detention order could still be sustained on the statements of three witnesses upon which reliance has been placed by the Detaining Authority. We think the submission is required to be stated merely for being rejected. The basic premise upon which the detenu has been branded as a "dangerous person" emanates from the four criminal cases registered against the detenu. It is only for the purpose of saying that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain him, that reliance has been placed upon the statements of three witnesses. The two aspects, one about the person being a "dangerous person" and the other about "the need to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order", are separate and distinct aspects. Both the aspects must be established and only then a valid detention order can be passed. Even if on the basis of the three statements, it can be said that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, there is need to detain him, that by itself would not be sufficient to detain him. Even if on the basis of the three statements, it can be said that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, there is need to detain him, that by itself would not be sufficient to detain him. Before that is done, a finding has to be reached that the detenu, is a "dangerous person" and that finding could not have been reached, in the present case, unless reliance was placed upon to four cases which have been registered against the detenu. Once reliance is placed upon those four cases, supply of the copies of the annexures to the charge sheets to the detenu was obligatory on the Detaining Authority. That obligation having not been discharged, both the aspects of the matter as aforesaid could not be said to have been satisfied. Therefore the detention order could not be sustained merely on the second aspect about the need to detain. In that view of the matter, the second submission of Mr. Patel has also no substance. 32. Having bestowed our anxious attention to the matter, we are convinced that in the present case on account of non supply of the copies of the annexures to the charge sheet to the detenu, there has been infraction of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution read with Section 9(1) of the Act. The detention order should therefore fail. The same is quashed and set aside. The continued detention of the detenu should come to an end. He should be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to be detained for any other lawful cause. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed.