Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. One Ayshath Fathima (petitioner) is the wife of the detenu Mohammed Jaffar Ali. The residential premises of the detenu was searched on 14-9-1994 by the Enforcement Directorate and the Officers seized Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 2, 54, 650/- and three bunches of loose sheets. They also, it is said, searched Room No. 22 at No. 76 Savarimuthu Street, Madras and recovered Rs. 1, 10, 000/- Indian currency and certain sheets of papers. A statement under S. 40 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, it is said, was recorded from the detenu, in which he was alleged to have stated that one Ahmad Maulana of Singapur is his relative and he persuaded him to receive payment and distribute the same to the persons, whose names and addresses would be furnished by the said Ahmad Maulana. He, it is further said, also employed persons, viz., Ahmad Jalaluddin, Mahmood and Nandagopal, with a view to distribute the monies to the intended persons. Statements, it is said, were also recorded from the employees, viz., Ahmad Jalaluddin and Nandagopal. Further, a statement was also said to have been recorded from the detenu on 15-9-1994, on which date he had been arrested and remanded to custody 2. Crl. M.P. No. 766 of 1994, it is said, had been filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Madras, for his release on bail. Similarly another application being Crl. M.P. No. 764 of 1994 had been filed for his release on bail before the very same Court. Crl. M.P. No. 766 of 1994 had been dismissed as withdrawn, and the other application Crl. M.P. No. 764 of 1994 was also dismissed. Subsequently, he filed Crl. M.P. No. 6443 of 1994 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras. The detenu was released on condition bail by order dated 24-10-1994, which order was further modified in Crl. M.P. No. 6797 of 1994, dated 4-11-1994. In all these bail applications, the detenu had specifically retracted his earlier confession statement given before the enforcement authorities. Subsequent to his release on bail, it is said, further statement was recorded from the detenu on 10-11-1994 3. Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi (1st respondent), in his proceedings F. No. 673/197/94-CUS. In all these bail applications, the detenu had specifically retracted his earlier confession statement given before the enforcement authorities. Subsequent to his release on bail, it is said, further statement was recorded from the detenu on 10-11-1994 3. Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi (1st respondent), in his proceedings F. No. 673/197/94-CUS. VIII, dated 12-12-1994, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended), with a view to preventing the detenu in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange clamped upon him the impugned order of detention 4. Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would press into service the sole and lone ground viz., that the grounds of detention did not at all reflect the awareness of the retraction of the confession made by the detenu to the personnel of the Enforcement Directorate, which had been specifically referred to in the various bail applications, although the bail applications so filed had been considered for deriving the subjective satisfaction, before ever the impugned order of detention was passed and on this short ground alone, he would say, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside 5. Mr. K. Asokan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, representing both the respondents would, however, repel such a submission and also produce the relevant file for perusal and consideration of this Court 6. There is no pale of controversy that the impugned order of detention refers to the various confession statements made by the detenu and also the date of his arrest. Yet another fact, about which there is no dispute at all is that the detenu made several attempts in filing bail applications before the competent forums for his release on bail. The further undisputed fact is that the copies of all those bail applications had been placed before the 1st respondent detaining authority, and copies of such bail applications had also been furnished to the detenu. When we, with so much of anxiety and concern, perused the grounds of detention, we were able to find that the 1st respondent-detaining authority referred to the various bail applications in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the impugned order. When we, with so much of anxiety and concern, perused the grounds of detention, we were able to find that the 1st respondent-detaining authority referred to the various bail applications in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the impugned order. A careful perusal of those paragraphs does not at all reveal that the 1st respondent-detaining authority was alive to the factum of the retraction made by the detenu in those applications. However, the 1st respondent-detaining authority, observed in paragraph 20 of the impugned order of detention as follows :- "I have taken into consideration the allegations made in various petitions mentioned herein before, but from the material on record, I am satisfied that the said allegations are baseless, afterthoughts and devoid of merit" * 7. Mr. K. Asokan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing the respondents would, however, urge that the averments in paragraph 20 must have to be construed to relate to a reference having been made as to the retraction of the confession statement made by the detenu in all those bail applications, he had filed before the competent forums. To such a submission, we are rather unable to affix our seal of approval, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. All the bail applications had been considered by the 1st respondent detaining authority, in the sense of either allowing or dismissing of those applications only for the purpose of considering the question of impelling or compelling necessity of passing the impugned order of detention and not otherwise. Even though copies of the bail applications were very much available before the 1st respondent-detaining authority, we have to further reiterate and state that the grounds of detention do not at all disclose that the 1st respondent-detaining authority was alive to the fact that the statement which had been described as 'voluntary', was, in fact, retracted. If on being alive to the fact, the 1st respondent-detaining authority would still have reached the conclusion that it was voluntary, that would have been a different matter, with which this Court would have no occasion probably to interfere. But, since the 1st respondent-detaining authority has failed to apply his mind to the fact that the confession statement was retracted in all those bail applications, in penning down the impugned order we are of the view that the impugned order of detention stands vitiated 8. But, since the 1st respondent-detaining authority has failed to apply his mind to the fact that the confession statement was retracted in all those bail applications, in penning down the impugned order we are of the view that the impugned order of detention stands vitiated 8. In this view of the matter, this H.C.P. is allowed. The impugned order of detention is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless and until he is required to be detained in connection with any other cause.