JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenue Abdul Razaak Essabhai Babubhai @ Babla, has impugned the order dated 13th June 1997, passed by Mr. Somnath Pal, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, detaining the detenue under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order along with the grounds of detention bearing the said date was contemporaneously served on the detenu on 17-9-1997. 2. We have heard Mrs. A.N.Z. Ansari for the petitioner, Mr. R. M. Agarwal for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs. V.K. Tahilramani, P.P. for respondents Nos. 3 and 4. 3. Since in our view, this petition deserves to be allowed on a purely legal ground contained in para 4(xi) of the petition we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the detenu detained in the grounds of detention. In short ground No. 4(xi) is that the detaining authority referred to and relied upon in the grounds of the detention the bail order dated 29--11-1996 whereby the detenue was granted bail by the Court but instead of furnishing a complete copy of the said bail order only a truncated copy was supplied to the detenue and therefore the could not make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore the impugned detention order is unsustainable. 4. It is common ground between Counsel for the parties and is also borne out from the record that only the operative part of the bail order and not its complete copy was forwarded by the Sponsoring Authority to the detaining authority and supplied to the detenue. In a Division Bench decision of our Court to which one of us, (Vishnu Sahai J.) was a party, reported in 1997(1) Mh.L.J. page 186, (Sameer Sulaman Shama v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, after making a reference to a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court of India, it has thus been observed in para 14 (page 565 Bom.C.R. Cri.) "14. On a careful consideration of the above rulings the following propositions would emerge: (i) ... ... ... On a careful consideration of the above rulings the following propositions would emerge: (i) ... ... ... (ii) the order granting bail is a valid document and the same must be communicated to the detenu when it contains reasons for granting bail so as to enable him to make an effective representation. (iii) ... ... ... (iv) Once the order granting bail is a reasoned order the detenu must be furnished with the copy of the order whatever may be the nature of reasoning." A perusal of the said decision would show that the requirement of law is that where a bail order is a reasoned order or a speaking order its copy should be furnished to the detenu. We wish to point out that copy means a complete copy and not merely a part of the copy. 5. We have examined the bail order in the instant case and we find the same to be a reasoned order running into six pages. Since in the instant case only the operative part of the bail order was forwarded to the detaining authority and its copy supplied to the detenu the impugned detention order cannot be sustained in law and has to be set aside. 6. In the result this petition is allowed. The impugned detention order, Exhibit "A" to the petition is quashed and the detenue Abdul Razaak Essabhai Babubhai @ Babla who is in jail, is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. *****