Judgment :- Arunachalam, J. B.Sankar, petitioner herein, is the son of Balasubramanian, who has been preventively detained in pursuance of an order of detention 111. 1995, passed by the first respondent, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended (Central Act 52 of 1974), with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods in future. 2. It will be totally unnecessary to state the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order, for this habeas corpus petition will have to be allowed on a short, but substantial ground. 3. Mr. A.K.S.Thahir, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that in the impugned order and the grounds, dated 111. 1995, it has been specifically mentioned that the detenu was then a remand prisoner confined in Central Prison, Madras, where as even on 11. 1995, he was released on bail in pursuance of orders passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Madras, in M.P.No.523 of 1995. After notice was ordered to the respondent, namely, the Superintendent of Customs, Prosecution Cell, Customs House, Madras-1, the Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Superintendent of Customs has made an endorsement in the application for bail that he was leaving the matter to the discretion of the court, since the complaint was not filed even after expiry of 60 days. Petitioner’s learned counsel further pointed out that in terms of the bail conditions imposed, the detenu was reporting before, the sponsoring authority on 11. 1999. 11.1995 and 11. 1995 111. 1995 and 111. 1995 were holidays and on 111. 1995, the detenu reported again before the sponsoring authority. He submitted that if the detenu was on bail, and not a remand prisoner, and that fact had not been brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority, the impugned order will have to be viced for the application relates to a person in remand and not to one who of mind was enjoying liberty with certain conditions. 4. Mr.I.Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to contend that though the sponsoring authority may have been aware of this fact, the Detaining Authority had no knowledge about it. 5. 4. Mr.I.Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to contend that though the sponsoring authority may have been aware of this fact, the Detaining Authority had no knowledge about it. 5. The sponsoring authority owed a duty to have brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority, soon after the conditional bail order was passed, about the said fact, so that the Detaining Authority, could have applied his mind about the need to detain the detenu preventively, when he was enjoying restricted liberty due to the conditions imposed. We have no hesitation, whatever, in voicing the subjective satisfaction arrived at, for it relates to a person in remand, while the detenu was admittedly on bail. One does not know as to how the Detaining Authority would have reacted if he was made aware that the detenu was already on bail. Following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anant v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Crl.L.J. 323, we hold that there has been clear non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority about the fact that the detenu was granted bail, when the order of detention was passed. The subjective satisfaction arrived at, on the basis of the detenu having been in remand, will necessarily have to be viced. 6. The net result is that this habeas corpus petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is otherwise required.