Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Adaikalam, son of Shanmugavel Nadar, who is detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980) by the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Madurai, in his proceedings dated 18.08.2006, branding him as a "black marketeer". The order of detention is questioned mainly on the ground that the application for bail was not supplied to the detenu and therefore the detenu could not make an effective representation to the detaining authority, the Government and the Advisory Board. 2. Thesaid question came up for consideration before the Apex Court in M.Ahamedkutty v. Union of India [ (1990) 2 SCC 1 ] and the Apex Court has held as follows: "Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired, and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of the detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but no hold that it amounted to denial of the detenus right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case." 3. In another decision in P.U.Abdul Rahiman v. Union of India {1991 Supp.(2) SCC 274), the Apex Court has held as under: "4. The appellant had been arrested on 4-6-1988 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On 9-6-1988 he had moved an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasargod for bail. That application was rejected. On 10-6-1988 the appellant moved an application for bail, as CMP No.104 of 1988, before the District Sessions Judge, Kasargod. On 17-6-1988 the appellant was released on bail subject to certain conditions. In the two applications for bail the appellant had specifically stated that he had retracted from the statement made by him. That application was rejected. On 10-6-1988 the appellant moved an application for bail, as CMP No.104 of 1988, before the District Sessions Judge, Kasargod. On 17-6-1988 the appellant was released on bail subject to certain conditions. In the two applications for bail the appellant had specifically stated that he had retracted from the statement made by him. The co-accused, who had also made a statement, had retracted from his statement." 4. The issue again came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India [ (1992) 1 SCC 1 ] and the Apex Court has held in paragraphs 12.(3) and 12.(6) as under: "12.(3) If the detenu has moved for bail then the application and the order thereon refusing bail even if not placed before the detaining authority it does not amount to suppression of relevant material. The question of non-application of mind and satisfaction being impaired does not arise as long as the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in actual custody. 12.(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." 5. Recently, the very same question came to be considered by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2006) 2 SCC (cri) 90 (Sunil Jain v. Union of India) and the Apex Court has again reiterated that it is not in all cases the bail application should be furnished to the detenu. 6. An analysis of the above judgments would show that there is no general rule that in all cases the application for bail should be supplied to the detenu and non-supply of the application would vitiate the order of detention only when the application for bail contains certain additional materials to seek for bail and the court, while granting bail had taken note of those additional materials, the requirement of supply of application for bail would be mandatory and in that event, non-supply of application for bail would vitiate the order of detention. It is also well settled whether non-supply of application for bail would vitiate the order of detention, it depends upon each case. 7. In the given case, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that at the time when the bail application was made it was averred in the bail application that the confession already made by the detenu was retracted and the said fact was also weighed in the mind of the judicial magistrate while granting bail. Though the said contention has not been specifically made in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the representation dated 26.08.2006 made by the petitioner to the detaining authority wherein she has specifically stated that the detenu had retracted the confession. In that context, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the retracted confession is the relevant material and the absence of such material as contained in the bail application and the non-supply of the same to the detenu makes the order of detention bad. To controvert the above contention, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that inasmuch as the confession was made before the Tahsildar, it cannot be retracted as the said confession is admissible in evidence. 8. In our considered view, the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no merits. As far as the detenu is concerned, whether the confession made before the Tahsildar is admissible in evidence or not is not relevant for the purpose of making a representation. In order to make an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the material, which would have weighed the mind of the judicial magistrate while granting bail, is relevant material to make an effective representation. A material may be either admissible in evidence or it may not be admissible, but nevertheless, for the purpose of making an effective representation whatever materials which were relied upon by the detaining authority should have been furnished to the detenu. 9. It is not in dispute that the detaining authority has relied upon the fact that bail was granted in favour of the detenu. In the order of bail, the detaining authority has also relied upon the fact that the detenu has sought for bail on medical grounds and the learned Judicial Magistrate has accepted those grounds. 9. It is not in dispute that the detaining authority has relied upon the fact that bail was granted in favour of the detenu. In the order of bail, the detaining authority has also relied upon the fact that the detenu has sought for bail on medical grounds and the learned Judicial Magistrate has accepted those grounds. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the application for bail which contains certain materials which weighed in the mind of the Judicial Magistrate while granting bail should have been supplied to the detenu and the non-supply of the said application would vitiate the order of detention. 10. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.M.P.NO.1/2006(CS), dated 18.08.2006, passed by the first respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.