V. G. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus declaring the detention of naga alias nagaraja alias huccha nagaraja alias makali naga by order No. 103 mag (3) dtn 99, dated 17-12-1999 (Annexure-A) and confirmed by respondent 2 by order bearing No. Hd 390 sst 99, dated 28-12-1999 and further confirmed in hd 390 sst 99, dated 10-2-2000 (Annexure-D) as illegal and void ab initio. ( 2 ) IT is averred in the petition that petitioner is the wife of the detenu, she has filed the petition as she is concerned with the personal liberty of the detenu. The detention order is illegal and detenu has been falsely implicated in pursuance to false cases foisted against him. It is averred that the order of detention is illegal as the detenu has not been purportedly furnished the grounds of detention, order of detention and material relied upon in passing the detention order as required under article 22 of the Constitution of india. The grounds of detention furnished to the detenu is produced as annexure-b. It is averred inter alia that the order of detention is vitiated for the reason that the bail application and the detailed order granting bail in crime No. 335 of 1999 which incident has been relied upon in passing the order of detention and which was" required to have been necessarily placed and considered by the detaining authority has not been so done and the failure in that behalf vitiates the detention order rendering the detention illegal and unconstitutional. ( 3 ) NOTICE was issued to the respondents and the state public prosecutor accepted notice for the respondents and the counter-affidavit of the first respondent is filed by the state public prosecutor. It is averred that detention is legal and the detention order has been passed in accordance with law. It is specifically averred in para 9 of the counter-affidavit that he has not relied upon the order of bail granted in crime No. 335 of 1999 while passing the order of detention. It is averred that detention is legal and the detention order has been passed in accordance with law. It is specifically averred in para 9 of the counter-affidavit that he has not relied upon the order of bail granted in crime No. 335 of 1999 while passing the order of detention. But he has relied upon the charge- sheet filed in crime No. 335 of 1999 of peenya police station, which goes to show that there is ample material against the detenu in the said crime and the matter is pending trial before the court in cc No. 1409 of 1999. As he did not rely upon the order of bail granted in crime No. 335 of 1999, he did not furnish the copy of order of bail passed in crime no. 335 of 1999 to the detenu and wherefore, the failure to place the order of bail before the detaining authority and failure to consider the same and non-furnishing of order of bail could not vitiate the proceedings. It is further averred that bail orders are not relevant to be considered by the authority acting under Section 3 of the act. Consequently, he did not rely upon the order of bail granted in crime No. 335 of 1999. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned state public prosecutor. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the detaining authority has relied upon the bail order passed in crime No. 335 of 1999 and non-supply of the application for bail and the order granting bail would vitiate entire proceedings as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of abdul sathar ibrahim manik v union of India and others and the decision of this court in dileep kumar kunnepalli naduvilapatt v state of Karnataka and another. ( 6 ) THE learned state public prosecutor contended that, in view of the averments made in the counter-affidavit the bail order passed in crime No. 335 of 1999 has not been relied upon by the detaining authority and wherefore, question of supplying the copy of the same would not arise and he submitted that the detaining authority has only relied upon the charge-sheet filed in crime No. 335 of 1999 and therefore, the detention is legal and not vitiated as contended by the petitioner. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the contention of the parties, the point that arises for determination is, whether the non-supply of the bail application and the copy of the order granting bail has vitiated the detention in the present case and whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition? ( 8 ) THE petitioner has produced Annexure-A the order of detention passed by the first respondent dated 17-12-1999. The petitioner has produced the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu by the first respondent as per Annexure-B which is in kannada and translation of the same in english is produced as per annexure-b1. It is observed at page 9 as follows:"you were in judicial custody and a charge-sheet against you was prepared and submitted to the court and you were released on bail on 21-7-1999. The trial of the said case has been taken up in cc No. 1409 of 1999 and next hearing is fixed to 15-2-2000". at page 12 of the grounds of detention, it is observed as follows:"many innocent people have not lodged complaint due to the fear of your goonda attitude. Whenever you were arrested and produced before the Hon'ble court in connection with the cases filed against you, somehow you have got released on bail by showing some or the other reason. I have examined your bail application presented to court, report of the investigating officer and also the applications in which the Hon'ble court has granted bail. It is necessary to keep you in detention under goonda act to curb your antisocial acts and activities which spoil public peace". ( 9 ) THE above contents of the grounds of detention shows that the first respondent-detaining authority has considered the bail application pursuant to the court order in which the court has granted bail and it is necessary to keep detenu under goonda act to curb his antisocial acts and activities which spoil public peace. ( 9 ) THE above contents of the grounds of detention shows that the first respondent-detaining authority has considered the bail application pursuant to the court order in which the court has granted bail and it is necessary to keep detenu under goonda act to curb his antisocial acts and activities which spoil public peace. In the case of abdul sathar ibrahim manik, supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is observed that: (page 2271)"having regard to the various above cited decisions on the points often raised, it is found appropriate to set down their conclusion as under: (6) in a case where detenu is released on bail and is at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention, then the detaining authority has to necessarily rely upon them as that would be a vital ground for ordering detention. In such a case the bail application and the order granting bail should necessarily be placed before the authority and the copies should also be supplied to the detenu". ( 10 ) IN the present case, the detenu had been released on bail by the court and he was taken into custody pursuant to the detention order and wherefore, the above said observations of the Hon'ble supreme court would apply on all fours to the facts of the present case. The decision of this court relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in writ petition No. 112 of 1998 (hc), dated 12-2-1999 is also helpful to the petitioner in the present case as in the said case it has been held that non-production of bail application and the order of bail would vitiate the proceedings. This court has observed as follows:"in the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the copies of the bail applications filed by the detenu (accused) in the various cases referred to in the grounds of detention and the bail orders passed on the said applications by the trial court as well as by this court were not placed before the detaining authority and were not available for consideration at the time when he made the impugned order of detention. It is also an undisputed fact that copies of the said bail applications filed by the detenu (accused) and the bail orders were also not furnished to the detenu so as to enable him to make an effective representation in exercise of his constitutional rights provided under sub-clause (5) of article 22 of the Constitution of india. As the detaining authority has not relied upon the said vital material at the time of passing the impugned order of detention, we find that the impugned order of detention is vitiated by non-application of mind, rendering the same as illegal and void ab initio. As a result of not placing the above material before the detaining authority at the time of passing the impugned order of detention, the detaining authority could not address himself to the question whether the detenu would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities as he was released on bail and whether it is essential to detain the detenu to prevent him from so doing. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the impugned order of detention passed by the first respondent dated 14-8-1998 which was confirmed by the second respondent by an order dated 24-8-1998 is illegal and is liable to be quashed". ( 11 ) IN view of the above said observations of this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hold that there is no merit in the contention of the learned state public prosecutor that the first respondent has not relied upon the bail application and the order of bail and that therefore, the detenu was not entitled to copy of the same. It is an admitted fact in the present case that the detenu was on bail by the order of the court and he has been taken to the custody pursuant to the detention order and therefore, in view of the above referred decisions, the order of detention cannot at all be sustained and the same is illegal and void ab initio and wherefore, we hold that the order of detention is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we pass the following order: the petition is allowed. Accordingly, we pass the following order: the petition is allowed. The detention order No. 103 mag (3) dtn 99, dated 17-12-1999 (Annexure-A) and confirmed by respondent 2 by order bearing No. Hd 390 sst 99, dated 28-12-1999 and further confirmed in hd 390 sst 99, dated 10-2-2000 (Annexure-D) is declared as illegal and is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release the detenu forthwith from custody if his detention is not required in any other case and if he is not detained in any other order of competent court or authority under the preventive detention laws. The first respondent is at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law. --- *** --- .