ORDER : Rathnakala, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging the detention of her son Rakesh alias Jacky, son of Sri Mohan, in view of the detention order dated 21-11-2014 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-A and approved by the second respondent-Government of Karnataka vide Annexure-C, dated 28-11-2014 and Annexure-D, dated 27-12-2014, by invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short). Sri Younous Ali Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the detenue voluntarily surrendered before III A.C.M.M., Bangalore, in connection with Crime No. 1418 of 2014 of Madivala Police Station registered in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 427, 109, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 448, 302 and307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Now he is in judicial custody and has not moved any bail application. Under the circumstance, there was no reason for the respondent to apprehend that he will be released on bail. In the grounds of detention, the respondent has referred to his involvement in four cases. Out of other three cases registered against him, one case was in respect of a petty offence; on his admission of the offence, he was imposed fine; other two cases are under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC, which were registered suo motu by the Police falsely alleging that he was conspiring to commit dacoity along with the co-accused. The detention order is signed by the Under Secretary, who has no authority to pass the confirmation order. The detention order is not approved by the State within twelve days of passing of the order by the Police Commissioner. The documents which are referred by the Police Commissioner in the detention order for forming his opinion are not furnished to him to have his say in the matter, hence, violative of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Vaguely it is stated in the grounds of detention that the detenue involved himself at the age of 19 years in criminal cases and also forming group, etc. is only imaginary, without the proof of documentary material. He is in custody from 17-3-2014. He is on bail in two pending cases registered against him in respect of offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. is only imaginary, without the proof of documentary material. He is in custody from 17-3-2014. He is on bail in two pending cases registered against him in respect of offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. The prosecution in either of the cases has not sought for cancellation of his bail for violation of the bail order. The detention order passed by the Commissioner, so also the confirmation of the detention order are illegal and unconstitutional. 2. In reply, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the detention order was approved on 28-11-2014. The report of the Advisory Board was received on 12-12-2014; on 27-12-2014, period of detention has been specifically mentioned and there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be rejected. 3. Admittedly, the detenue was in judicial custody in a criminal case as on the date the detention order was passed; there was no reason to presuppose that he will be enlarged on bail, since he had not moved any application for his release on bail in the concerned Court. It is not the case of the respondent that the co-accused/similarly placed to the detenue were enlarged on bail probabalising that detenue also may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The Apex Court in the matter of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, (2011) 4 SCC 260 , (2011) 2 SCC (Cri.) 241, 2011 SAR (Cri.) 390, held that if no bail application was pending and the detenue is in jail, the detention order is illegal. In the matter of Ahmedhussain Shaikhhussain alias Ahmed Kalio v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Another, AIR 1989 SC 2274 , (1989) 4 SCC 751 , 1990 SCC (Cri.) 86, 1989 Cri. L.J. 2312 (SC), it was held that when a detenue is in jail in connection with the criminal case, the detaining authority must disclose that there is cogent and relevant material constituting fresh facts to necessitate making order of detention. The possibility that the detenue may be released from the jail is not a ground for detention. The same view was taken in the matter of Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah and Others, AIR 1986 SC 315 , (1985) 4 SCC 232 , 1985 SCC (Cri.) 514, 1986 Cri. The possibility that the detenue may be released from the jail is not a ground for detention. The same view was taken in the matter of Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah and Others, AIR 1986 SC 315 , (1985) 4 SCC 232 , 1985 SCC (Cri.) 514, 1986 Cri. L.J. 312 (SC); in the matter of Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1988 SC 596 , (1988) 1 SCC 436 , 1988 Cri. L.J. 839 (SC), 1988 SCC (Cri.) 178 and in the matter of Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar and Others, AIR 1986 SC 2090 , (1986) 4 SCC 416 , 1985 SCC (Cri.) 490, 1986 Cri. L.J. 1959 (SC). In the grounds of detention, the first respondent indicates that the detenue is not amenable to the ordinary laws of the land and his goonda activities had disturbed the tempo of the public life of the locality and detrimental to the maintenance of public order in Bangalore City, etc., but without producing what are those material which prompted the Commissioner to form such opinion. Out of the previous cases referred in the grounds of detention, two of them are pending trial and in one petty case, on his admission of the accusation he is enlarged on bail. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, the detention order passed against the detenue while in custody, on a presupposition that he will take law into his hands by obtaining bail was skeptical and in violence of the personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and also violative of the Article 22, clause (5) of the Constitution of India also. Though the confirmation order is passed within 12 days of the detention order and subsequently the State Government on the recommendation of the advisory board extended the detention for 12 months subject to renewal for every three months, for the discussion supra, the detention order is vitiated. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The detention order dated 21-11-2014 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-A and approved by the second respondent-Government of Karnataka vide Annexure-C, dated 28-11-2014 and Annexure-D, dated 27-12-2014, are quashed. Since the detenue is in judicial custody in respect of Crime No. 1418 of 2014 of Madivala Police Station, no further order for his release is necessary.