Judgment :- 1. Writ petitioner is the wife of one Nawaz @ Nayaz @ Nawab who has been detained in the Central Prison, Parapana Agrahara, Bangalore, ever since 19.07.2011 on which date the first respondent – the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City has passed an order for preventative detention of the said Nawaz as the detaining authority, as he was of the opinion that he fits into the description of a ‘goonda’ within the meaning of this word as defined under Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootieggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (Karnataka Act No.12 of 1985) (for short ‘the Act’) and having regard to his past conduct and the propensity for indulging in criminal activities constitution various offences mentioned in Chapter 16, 17 and 22 of the Indian Penal Code and having passed an order for his detention in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. 2. The wife of the detenue has presented this petition for issue of a writ or Habeas Corpus inter alia urging the grounds such as, that the order of detention is vitiated for more than one reason; due to the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority; that the detenue has not been given a proper opportunity to make an effective representation, in the sense, he ha not been made aware of his legal rights for seeking revocation of the order as is provided not only under the provisions of this Act but also constituting a violation of the safeguard provided under Sub Article (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India; that the authority has taken stale incidents into consideration for passing an order of detention, which vitiates the order; that the authority having placed reliance in respect of 10 incidents; for all of which incidents, the police have registered criminal cases and some matters are now pending trial before the competent Court, but having not furnished the relevant material based on which the order is passed relating to these 10 incidents and the cases registered in respect of all these incidents and such non-furnishing has prevented the detenue from making an effective representation for his release and therefore, the order is initiated etc., 3. Notice had been issued of this writ petition to the respondents. All three respondents are represented by Sri.Indiresha, learned High Court Government Pleader. Statement of objections is also filed on behalf of these respondents supported by the affidavit of Gopal, Under Secretary to Government, Home Department (Law and Order) urging for dismissal of the writ petition etc., 4. We have heard Sri.Kiran S Javali, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Indiresha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. It is not in dispute that the order of detention passed by the Commissioner on 19.07.2011 has been approved by the State Government on 29.07.2011 and that the matter had been referred to the opinion of the Advisory Board on 03.08.2011 and the advisory board met on 13.08.2011 wherein the detenue had an opportunity to make his representation and having examined the same, had opined on 17.08.2011 and has not revoked the order and based on the opinion of the advisory board, the State Government had passed confirmation of the detention order on 25.08.2011 and has affirmed that the detenue should be detained in the Central Prison for a duration of 12 months starting from 19.07.2011, the date of passing the order and when he was taken into custody. 6. Mr.Kiran S Javali, learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly urged three points for examination. It is firstly contended that while the detaining authority has the power and given the responsibility for revoking the order of detention upto the date when the State Government approved the order i.e., upto 29.07.2011, the detenue having not been made aware of the right to give a representation to the detaining authority during this interval, has affected the right of the detenue to make a representation to the detaining authority seeking for revocation of the order of detention; and therefore, it amounts to denial of a safeguard given to the detenue violating Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. It is secondly contended that the detaining authority has proceeded to pass an order of detention on such premise, but not having shown awareness as to whether the detenue was given to police custody on and after 11.11.2009, when he had been taken on body warrant by the Electronic City Police who conducted investigation, is a circumstance to indicate lack of application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and this has vitiated the order, and; It is thirdly contended that the detaining authority having made specific reference to the 10 incidents and the criminal conduct of the detenue in these incidents leading to the registration of 10 crime cases figuring at Sl.Nos.1 to 10, of the grounds of detention, but having furnished the detenue, the orders releasing him on bail only in the first six of such cases and not furnishing the copies of the order for releasing the detenue on bail for remaining four cases, which are recent cases amongst the first six cases has deprived the detenue an opportunity to make an effective representation, therefore also, the order gets vitiated. In support of the contention that non furnishing of not only the order of bail passed by the Court, but also the bail applications, vitiates the order of detention. In support of the contention that non furnishing of not only the order of bail passed by the Court, but also the bail applications, vitiates the order of detention. Mr.Kiran S Javali, has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Vs Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1991 SC 2261 and by drawing our attention to the conclusions, the Supreme Court had reached in the matter of passing the orders for preventive detention and particularly having indicated the situation wherein such an order can be passed and by following what procedure and what all requirement should be fulfilled to pass valid order of detention after discussions and examining the case law on the subject upto that point of time and as had earlier been noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamarunnissa Vs Union of India reported in AIR 1991 SC 1640 and amongst such six situation as per the conclusion, particular attention is drawn to the sixth situation or conclusion which is the situation as it prevails in the present fact situation and submits that non furnishing of the order granting bail and non furnishing of the bail application and in fact even the order granting bail having not been placed before the detaining authority in respect of the situation covered in cases at Sl.Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10, the detention order is vitiated and liable to be quashed for violating the requirements under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 7. Per Contra, Sri.Indiresh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the detenue has been furnished with all materials that had been placed before the detaining authority and relied upon, but material not placed before the detaining authority, cannot be considered as a relied upon material or document and therefore, submits that non furnishing of the copies of the bail application in all 10 cases and orders granting bail in last 4 situations which were not even before the detaining authority cannot be said to have vitiated the order of detention. With reference to the statement of objections Sri.Indiresh also submits that the detaining authority having indicated awareness in the order that the detenue was inside the prison, as an under-trial in a pending case or while on bail having propensity to indulge in prejudicial activities, prejudicial to the peace and public order of the society and particularly having shown awareness to the ability of the detenue to plot for, assault and murder of rival gang leaders etc., even while being imprisoned, the detaining authority has shown sufficient awareness regarding the possibilities and if has passed an order with such awareness, it shows the detaining authority has on being satisfied about passing an order of detention having regard to the object of enactment; that there is no need to quash the order as urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. Learned Government Pleader has also submitted that the detenue having made no representation, the question of a safeguard being denied or denying an-opportunity to make an effective representation, does not arise, therefore, urged for dismissal of the order. 9. In so far as the facts relating to passing of the detention order is concerned, it is not much in dispute and we have already noticed the same. 9. In so far as the facts relating to passing of the detention order is concerned, it is not much in dispute and we have already noticed the same. In so far as first contention of Sri.Kiran S Javali is concerned, a similar issue had been examined by this Court in another case also, and it was found not necessary to answer in that case and we find the situation being the same in the present case also as the language in the communication to the detenue apprising about his right to make a representation is identical in this case and whether the detenue is made aware of his right in a proper manner or was virtually mislead as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, all depends upon the manner in which the said communication is read and as it can also convey a possible meaning that the detenue has the right to make a representation to the detaining authority, that is good enough to make him aware but the later end that it will be forwarded to the State Government, if is read separately, the efficacy of the earlier communication is not taken away and therefore, we find it is not a question that really arises for examination on the fact situation of the present case as to whether the detenue has the right and to what extent such a right is impaired, about making representation to the detaining authority who has the power or authority to revoke the order of detention. Even otherwise, as the detention cannot be beyond the date on which the State Government approves the order and if the approval is not accorded by the State Government within 12 days of the order as even otherwise the order of detention lapses and therefore we don not process to give more importance to this aspect and proceeded to examine the second point. 10. In so far as the second and third contentions are concerned it was submitted by Sri.Kiran S Javali, for the purpose of urging that the detenue’s valuable safeguard and to make an effective representation seeking for revocation of the detention order is denied to him by not providing all such materials which has weighed on the mind of the detaining authority and therefore has deprived the detenue of an opportunity to make an effective representation for the revocation of the order. Judicial opinion on this aspect is crystallized and even as mandated by the Constitution, the detenue should necessarily be given the earliest opportunity to make a representation and this action is interpreted as not an empty formality but to enable the detenue to make an effective representation and anything sort of this, or any inaction which in anyway detracts or denies this valuable safeguard provided to the person in preventative detention in terms of Article 22(5) is denied or effected, does not leave us with any choice but to hold that the order of detention gets vitiated due to denial of an essential safeguard. 11. While the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik’s case referred to and relied upon by Mr.Kiran S Javali, no doubt while summing up its conclusion as per the observation made in evaluation of the earlier decision including as evaluated in the case of Kamarunnissa Vs Union of India and particularly for our purpose, the conclusion at para No.6 reading as under: “(6) In a case where detenue is released on bail and is at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention, then the detaining authority has not necessarily rely upon them a 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 detenue.” does indicate that the situation whether the detenue was on bail and was free to move around at the time of passing of the order of detention and the detaining authority is under an obligation to furnish not only the copy of the bail application but also copy of the bail order as that constitutes the vital material and that should be with the detaining authority, it presupposes the material before the detaining authority. In the instant case, it is not even the case of the respondents that in so far as bail application in all 10 cases and the order impugned or releasing the detenue in bail in 4 cases at Sl.Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 was before the detaining authority and therefore the question of supplying copies does not arise, but the ground of detention does indicate that the detaining authority has placed reliance only on such incidences and has drawn support for passing the order of detention. Mr.Kiran S Javali, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in the last event, the order of detaining authority gets vitiated due to the passing of the order of detention on material not before him and therefore, the detaining authority having derived its satisfaction on material not before him and also not making available such material, does vitiates the order. 12. A perusal of the order of detention does indicate that main basis for passing the order of detention is past history of the detenue as could be inferred from the earlier 10 incidents narrated, leading to criminal cases against the detenue and his accomplice and henchmen and though some of these have been urged as stale material, the incidents narrated in respect of cases at Sl.No.7 to 10 being of recent origin. Undoubtedly, they could have had weighed in the mind of the authority, but the very order being not before the authority and even as revealed being not an input to the mind of detaining authority and the detaining authority being not very sure a to the position of the detenue, in the sense, whether he was in custody or he was free to move about on bail and this position being not definitely ascertainable, by the very reading of the ground of detention as revealed therein and that Sri.Kiran S Javali, learned counsel for the petitioner having also placed before us the copy of the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Sessions Court-XVII, Bangalore City on 01.06.2011 in Cri.Misc.Pet.No.2567/2011 in relation to Cr.No.151/2011 registered by the Mico Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 25 of the India Arms Act, 1959 and that the detenue being a second accused in those cases, and having obtained the release on bail by making an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and this order though was passed on 01.06.2011 being not within the knowledge and awareness of the detaining authority though the order was passed on 19.07.2011 almost 1 1/2 months after the order releasing the detenue in that criminal case, is a circumstance which clearly indicates that the detaining authority had not been made aware of the entire fact situation and not placing all relevant material before the detaining authority definitely vitiates the order of detention as is the law developed in this branch of jurisprudence through a series of cases. 13. 13. Before parting we cannot help observing the careless manner in which police investigated such criminal cases having serious repercussion on the society and members of the society in cases involving persons like goondas, but even otherwise as the person who has shown to have indulged in the offences made punishable under Chapter 16, 17 and 22 of Indian Penal Code, but has been facing trial in not less than six cases over four of the ten cases mentioned in the ground, having resulted in acquittal and though the accused has jumped bail on many occasions and was absconding and was a fugitive in the eyes of law, nevertheless being able to get order for his release on making an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. speaks volumes of the incompetence or irresponsible manner in which the prosecution case is laid and conducted before the Courts. 14. We are surprised, rather deeply shocked that persons of such background, an accused who has jumped bail on many occasions in many pending criminal cases, a person who has the propensity for indulging in fresh criminal cases, even while facing trial in many earlier cases, including offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 is able to source anticipatory bail as late as on 01.06.2011 in a fresh case while either on bail in earlier five cases or having jumped bail in some cases and even such fact situation having not been placed before the learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Sessions Court before whom the application had been made for granting of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, and not bringing before that Court such past history and background of the accused in that cases by the prosecution, but had suffered an order to grant bail, and though had also filed objections to the bail application, only makes a very sad and depressing scene, reflection on the State of our criminal investigation system as well as prosecution methods. 15. In such facts and circumstances, we have no choice but to quash the impugned order of detention, as being in the teeth of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 15. In such facts and circumstances, we have no choice but to quash the impugned order of detention, as being in the teeth of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. We earnestly hope that the observations we have made above in the context of the bail passing of the order dated 01.06.2011, passed in Crl.Misc.Pet.No.2567/2011 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Sessions Court-XVII, Bangalore City is taken note of by the State Government and commensurate measures are ensured not only to bolster the investigation methods and the efficiency of the investigating officers, but also to ensure appointment of competent prosecutors who are having the skill and knowledge to conduct cases on behalf of the State before the criminal courts. 16. We direct the Registrar General to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the State Government; Secretary, Law Department; and Prl. Secretary, Department of Home Affairs. 17. This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) is allowed. The order of detention bearing No.CRM(4)/DTN/07/2011 dated 19.07.2011 passed by the first respondent (copy at Annexures-‘A’ and ‘C’ to the writ petition) and approved by the second respondent dated 29.07.2011 and further confirmed by order bearing No. OE 340 SST 2011 dated 29.08.2011 are quashed by issue of writ of certiorari. We direct the detenue – Nawaz @ Nayaz @ Nawab son of late Syed Yusuf @ Sha Nazabuddin be set at liberty, forthwith if not required in any other cases. Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of this order to the third respondent – Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore, forthwith.