(1) ABDUL Rehiman, who was detained under the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 has filed special leave petitions against the two judgments of the Bombay High court rejecting the writ petitions filed by him seeking the quashing of the detention order. A writ petition has also been filed by the petitioner questioning the detention and the subsequent declaration made by the authorities under Section 10 of the Act. (2) THE detenu was arrested on 27/6/1991 on the ground that he was in possession of 2 kgs of heroin and made a confession regarding the possession of the same. On 28/6/1991, the petitioner made an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate alleging that he was falsely implicated. However, the charge-sheet was filed and on 14/8/1991 ultimately the High court released him on bail. On 10/8/1991, the Narcotics Department sent a proposal for detention of the petitioner to the Screening Committee and on 4/11/1991, the Detaining Authority rejected the proposal for detention. (3) THEN, it is alleged that on 18/11/1991, the Sub-Inspector visited the flat of the petitioner and recorded the statement of his gardener and watchman and came to know that the petitioner is continuously absent. Being satisfied that the detenu was renewing his old contacts while on bail, a fresh proposal for detention was made and detention order was passed on 6/12/1991. The detention order .was served and a reference was made to the Advisory Board. The detenu also made a representation about the detention which was confirmed by the government. Further, on 13/3/1992, a declaration to this effect was made by an authorised officer of the central government under Section 10 of the Act. The subsequent representations made by the detenu were rejected by both the State government and the central government. On 2/3/1992, he filed a writ petition being No. 46 of 1992, but the same was dismissed by the High court on 17/6/1992. The detention was confirmed on 17/7/1992 and questioning the same another writ petition being No. 137 of 1992 was filed but the same was also dismissed by the High court. Two special leave petitions have been filed in this court against the said two judgments. The writ petition has been directly filed in this court questioning the detention and the declaration made under Section 10 of the Act. Two special leave petitions have been filed in this court against the said two judgments. The writ petition has been directly filed in this court questioning the detention and the declaration made under Section 10 of the Act. (4) THE learned counsel submits that the detaining authority has not applied its mind whether the detention was necessary, particularly, when on an earlier occasion, the proposal for detention was rejected on 4/11/1991. It is also his submission that the detaining authority was not necessarily justified in observing that the detenu violated the conditions of bail and he left Bombay for renewing his old contacts. His further submission is that the declaration under Section 10 by the authorised officer is not based on any material and the necessary satisfaction for making such a declaration appears to have been arrived at by a material which was non-existent. (5) SO far as the possession of two kgs of heroin is concerned, it may be stated that it is the subject-matter of the criminal case and there is also a confession statement made by the detenu. No doubt, the proposal to detain him was not acted upon on 4/11/1991 by an officer of the Home Department. However, ultimately, on the available material that was placed the detaining authority was satisfied that the detention was necessary. Accordingly, the order of detention was passed. The two main grounds relied upon by the detaining authority were that the detenu was found in possession of heroin and also made a confession and that he was on bail, and, therefore, there is likelihood of his indulging in such prejudicial activities again and to prevent him, the detention was necessary. Incidentally, he referred to the order in the bail application and was satisfied that he was not at his abode where he is expected to be and, therefore, he violated the conditions of bail. Strictly speaking, there was no violation of conditions of bail. But that was not the ground on which the detention was made. The main ground is that he was on bail when the Sub- inspector visited and recorded the statement of the watchman and the gardener and came to know that he was not available. There was a reasonable suspicion that if he continues on bail, he is likely to renew his old contacts. In that connection, he mentioned the conditions in the bail order. There was a reasonable suspicion that if he continues on bail, he is likely to renew his old contacts. In that connection, he mentioned the conditions in the bail order. Therefore, we are not able to agree with the learned counsel that there was an invalid ground as such. To that extent of the detention, we see no infirmity so far as the detention order is concerned. (6) NOW, coming to the declaration under Section 10 of the Act, the S. contemplates that with a view to prevent a detenu already under detention alleged to be in possession of narcotic drugs etc. the central government or any officer of the central government may make a declaration after satisfaction that the detenu is engaged in or is likely to engage in narcotic drugs etc. We may make it clearlear that for making a declaration, any further material other than which was before the detaining authority is not necessary. The authority concerned under Section 10 can arrive at the necessary satisfaction on the available material. But, however, on the question of fact in the present case, the material that has been taken into consideration, appears to be that there was a violation of conditions of bail which factually is not correct. There was no conscious violation of the conditions of the bail, therefore, factually, we are of the view that it is not a case where a declaration under Section 10 was warranted. Consequently, we confirm the detention while quashing the declaration made under Section 10 of the Act. Since the detention is only for one year and the detenu has been under detention for more than 1-1/2 years, and if the detenu has served out the period, he may be released, if not required in any other case. With the above observations, the special leave petitions and the writ petition are disposed of.