JUDGMENT - R.G. VAIDYANATHA, J. :---This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 7th August, 1995. Heard Mr. Shirish Gupte, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. H.V. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the Union of India.

2. Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:---

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Vasant Ramchandra Gaikwad. The Commissioner of Police, Bombay passed the impugned order dated 7th August, 1995 under section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 for detaining the detenu to prevent him from doing prejudicial activities as mentioned in the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention are annexed to the petition as per annexure 'B'.

Being aggrieved by the order of detention, the mother of the detenu has come up with the present petition. The grounds of detention are not necessary since the petition has been argued on a question of law by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the copy of the order of bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge to the detenu dated 17th July, 1995 was not placed before the detaining authority, and therefore, subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has been impaired. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detaining authority was aware of pendency of the bail application and mere non-placing of the copy of the order of bail before the detaining authority will not vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Both the sides have placed reliance on some decisions.

4. In the grounds of detention, in Para 4(c)(iii) it is mentioned that the learned Magistrate rejected the bail application of the petitioner on 3-7-1995. Then in Para 4(d)(iv) it is mentioned that the detenu has filed a bail application in the Sessions Court and it is pending. Then there is no mention in the grounds of detention about the detenu being released on bail. As already stated, the detention order is dated 7-8-1995, whereas the detenu was granted bail by the Sessions Judge on 17th July, 1995. This copy of the order of bail dated 17th July, 1995 was not placed before the detaining authority. The question is whether this non-placing of a vital document impaired the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority or not?

A perusal of the bail order reveals certain conditions placed on the detenu by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made available a copy of the order dated 17th July, 1995. The learned Sessions Judge has mentioned that he is taking precautions to impose certain conditions on the applicant before him so that his further activities can be monitored. Then in operative portion of the order, it is observed as follows:---

"He shall not enter the local limits of Andheri Police Station and shall attend Vile Parle Police Station every Sunday between 6.00 and 7.00 p.m. until trial is over."

It is, therefore, seen that the learned Sessions Judge has taken precautions to impose stringent conditions to monitor and supervise the activities of the petitioner. If this copy of the order of bail had been placed before the detaining authority and he was made aware of the conditions imposed by the bail order, the question is whether the detaining authority would still have passed an order of detention or he would not have passed such an order. It is purely left to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. We are concerned only with the question as to what is the effect of non-placing of a vital document before the detaining authority.

5. The matter is no longer res integra, but is covered by a direct authority of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2261, (Abdul Sattar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and others)1. After surveying the case law on the point, the Supreme C