JUDGMENT (ORAL) G.D. Kamat, J - This is a Habeas Corpus (Writ) Petition instituted by the wife of the detenu Abdul Gaffar Khan against whom an Order has been made on 27th of July, 1993 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. It is recited in the Order of Detention by the District Magistrate, South Goa, that he is satisfied that it is necessary to detain Abdul Gaffar Khan to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order in South Goa District. This Detention Order was approved by the State Government on 2nd of August, 1993 and it is not disputed that the Detention Order was served on the detenu in the Judicial Lock - up at I Margao on 3rd of August, 1993. 2. Several grounds have been taken in the petition to challenge the Detention Order of 17th July, 1993, but, in our view, this petition can be disposed of on the ground so far urged, namely, that the Order of Detention suffers from non application of mind inasmuch as the District Magistrate, South Goa, was not even aware that the detenu was under one custody or the other throughout as from 30th June, 1993. 3. The grounds of detention were served upon the detenu pari passu with the Order of Detention of the same date. The grounds of detention make a reference to 8 different incidents of various dates between 14th of April, 1991 to 30th June, 1993. After detailing the incidents as mentioned above all that is said in paragraph 2 of the grounds of detention is to this effect: "Therefore, on the basis of above said facts and the circumstances therein and after considering the marked documents, it is clear that you are involving in criminal activities continuously since 1984 under various sections of I.P.C. and it is also evident that though you have been booked by the Police and prosecuted time and again under the ordinary law of the land you have failed to improve yourself and have continued to indulge in activities which are antisocial and which are disturbing the public peace and public order. You have created an atmosphere of terror and fear in the South Goa District and adjoining areas and people are finding it difficult to live in peace as they are subject to threats and assault because of your criminal activities." It is, therefore, clear that the Detaining Authority, namely, the District Magistrate, South Goa, has not even shown any awareness that the detenu was in jail right from 30th June, 1993 nor has come to hold that the District Magistrate apprehends that if the detenu is released on bail the detenu is likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. In paragraph 3 of the petition it is stated that the detenu was arrested on 30th June, 1993 and his bail application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and, thereafter, by the Sessions Court at Margao. The detenu remained as a result in police custody for 10 days and, thereafter was taken to Cuncolim in connection with another crime where he was directed to be detained in police custody for a period of 5 days. The bail application filed by the detenu was granted and the detenu was directed to be released on bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount. However, the detenu could not avail of the bail order in his favor as he was unable to furnish surety. The detenu was, thereafter, taken to Verna Police Station for investigation in another crime and again though his bail application was granted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama for his release the detenu did not avail of the same. The detenu was taken to Sanvordem for investigation in another crime and though he was directed to be released on bail, he did not avail of the same. The detenu was taken in connection with another crime at Ponda and though the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda, directed his release on bail, the detenu did not avail of the same. The detenu was, thereafter, further remanded and in the mean time taken to Vasco-da-Gama for further investigation in connection with the complaint lodged by one Shaik Raja and his bail application was granted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Vasco-da-Gama and this time he was directed to be released on his furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 4,000/- with one surety which he did. 4,000/- with one surety which he did. However, before he was released he was taken to Margao by Margao Town Police in connection with investigation of a complaint lodged by Shri Shivdas Borkar, with the result as from 27th July, 1993 the detenu was transferred to Judicial custody at the behest of Margao Police Station for a period of 7 days. 5. In the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, South Goa, Margao, Shri Dharmendra who was himself not the Detaining Authority at the relevant time, in meeting the averments in the petition in Para 3, says that the details mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition 3 relevant in the present writ petition. In paragraph 10 of his affidavit, Shri Dharmendra says: "The Detaining Authority was aware that the detenu was in judicial custody and was also aware that he was likely to be released from Jail. I deny that the impugned order of detention suffers from the vice of non-application of mind." We are unable to appreciate what is stated by the District Magistrate which is diametrically opposed to the settled law in the matter of preventive detention. It is well-known proposition that the Detaining Authority must show awareness that the detenu was in jail and despite being in jail the detenu is to be detained under preventive detention as in the event of his release on bail at the directions of the Court, the detenu may engage himself in activities prejudicial to the public order. It is impossible to accept that Mr. Dharmendra makes a statement in the affidavit when there is no inkling of such an awareness or the necessity of yet clamping down the detention in the grounds of detention served on the detenu. On the contrary, we are fortified in saying that the District Magistrate was not even aware that the detenu was in jail and this is clear when he addressed the impugned Detention Order and the grounds of Detention at the residential house of the detenu and the Order of Detention and grounds of detention were served on the detenu in the Judicial Lock -up at Margao. But in view of the stand taken by the Detaining Authority, it is necessary that the Detaining Authority must know what is the law on the subject and, therefore, we are transcribing a few observations of the Supreme Court as to how the law views things on the subject - matter vis-a-vis the preventive detention. 6. In the decision of Vijay Kumar v. State of J K1, on a consideration of various aspects of the matter, the Supreme Court observed thus: "Preventive detention is resorted to, to thwart future action. If the detenu is already in jail charged with a serious offence, he is thereby prevented from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. May be, in a given case there yet may be the need to order preventive detention of a person already in jail. But in such a situation the detaining authority must disclose awareness of the fact that the person against whom an order of preventive detention is being made is to the knowledge of the authority-already in jail and yet for compelling reasons a preventive detention order needs to be made." The Supreme Court in the latest authority in the decision of Veeramani v. State of Tamilnadu2, held as under: "From the catena of decisions of this Court it is clear that even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can validly be passed if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; if he has reason to believe on the basis of the reliable material that there is a possibility of his being released on bail and that on being so released, the detenu would in all probabilities indulge in prejudicial activities and if the authority passes an order after recording his satisfaction the same can not be struck down." From the aforesaid what can be culled out is that the Detaining Authority must show awareness in the Order itself and when there is no awareness shown by the Detaining Authority, the Order of Detention must be held to be vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind whether the detention was at all necessary as the detenu is already in custody. 7. In this view of the matter, petition succeeds. 7. In this view of the matter, petition succeeds. The impugned Detention Order dated 27 the of July, 1993 is quashed and set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Rule, accordingly, made absolute. Petition allowed. 1. A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1023. 2. 1994(1) 18 J.T S.C. 353.