M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. Gattu Srinivas @ Gattu Srinu @ Srinu son of Ramulu, was subjected to preventive detention under order dated 31.10.2015 in proceedings No.C1/9820/2015 of the Collector and District Magistrate, Nalgonda District, passed under Section 3 (1) read with 2 (a) and (b) of Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter, Act 1 of 1986).

2. Gattu Kavita, the wife of the said detenu, filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the detenu before this Court by declaring the detention order, dated 31.10.2015, as illegal and unconstitutional. Consequential relief was sought for release of the detenu forthwith from the Central Prison, Warangal, where he is lodged.

3. The detention of the petitioners husband was approved by the Government under G.O.Rt.No.2985, General Administration (Law and Order) Department, dated 10.11.2015. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Advisory Board under Section 11(1) of Act 1 of 1986; and, after consideration of the report submitted on 17.12.2015 by the Advisory Board, the Government confirmed the detention of the petitioners husband vide G.O.Rt.No.140, (Law and Order) Department, dated 21.1.2016, for a period of twelve months from the date of his detention, 31.10.2015.

4. We have heard Sri K.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the State.

5. Though various grounds are urged on behalf of the detenu, the main ground on which the detention of the petitioners husband is challenged is that all the materials relied upon by the detaining authority were not made available to the detenu, who is uneducated and has acquaintance only with Telugu language.

6. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on behalf of the detenu that in the grounds of detention, there was a reference to four crimes and that the detenu was enlarged on bail in three of the said four crimes viz., Crime No.139/2015-16, Crime No.474/2015-16 and Crime No.131/2015; the vital information that the offence alleged in the case in crime no. 131/2015 is bailable in nature and that in the other two of the three afore mentioned cases, the detenu was granted conditional bail on 23.9.2015 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda, was suppressed; and, the said information was not furnished by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority; and copies of the said conditional orders of bail were also not supplied to the detenu along with the materials, which formed the basis for passing detention order; the failure to furnish the conditional bail orders to the detaining authority as well as to the detenu vitiated the order of detention.

7. In the counter affidavit of the Collector and District Magistrate, Nalgonda, it is stated that the order of detention was passed to prevent the detenu from indulging in similar offences, taking note of his past and present criminal history and conduct, and that the order of detention is legal and is one passed in accordance with the procedure and provisions of Act 1 of 1986.

8. At the haring, it is fairly conceded that in two of the aforesaid three crimes viz., Crime No.139/2015-16 and Crime No.474/2015-16, the detenu was enlarged on conditional bail on 23.9.2015 and that in the third crime, he was enlarged on the same day as the offence therein was bailable. Copies of the said bail orders in the aforesaid crimes are produced before this court.

9. The learned Magistrate, while enlarging the detenu in Crime No.139/2015-16 and Crime No.474/2015-16 on conditional bail further imposed a condition in the said bail orders that he shall appear before the Assistant Excise Superintendent, Nalgonda, on every alternate day for a period of six weeks. Since the conditional orders are not made available to the