Basant, J.

Has there been proper application of mind by the detaining authority? When a detaining authority is not apprised of and is unaware of the fact that bail subject to conditions has been granted recently to a detenu and proceeds on the grossly erroneous premise that the detenu is absconding are those circumstances sufficient to invalidate the order of preventive detention? These questions arise for determination before us.

2. The petitioner is the father of a detenu under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as KAAPA). There were three cases registered against him. Though the incidents in those three cases occurred on 28/9/2005, 16/12/2006 and 31/8/2008 and final reports had not been filed, it was alleged that he was a known rowdy and his detention was necessary under Section 3 of the KAAPA. Proceedings commenced with Ext.P5 report dated 10/9/2008 submitted by the Circle Inspector of Police to the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police examined the documents and issued Ext.P4 order dated 19/1/2008 directing the registration of an F.I.R under Section 3 of the KAAPA. Accordingly the F.I.R Ext.P3 was registered on 27/12/2008. Report dated 30/12/2008 was submitted by the Superintendent of Police to the District Collector.

3. It will be apposite straight away to note that on 30/12/2008, the date of that report, under Section 3(1), in two of the three cases final reports had not been filed and the cases were pending investigation even though it is asserted that in the course of the incomplete investigation, satisfaction had been entertained by the police that the detenu had committed the offences alleged against him.

4. No action was taken on that report dated 30.12.2008 by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate returned the report dated 30/12/2008 to the Superintendent of Police. Thereafter in cases 2 and 3 referred above final reports dated 3/1/2009 and 30/3/2009 were filed by the investigating officer.

5. It was subsequently that Ext.P2 report dated 08/04/2009 was submitted by the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate. On the basis of that report, Ext.P1 order of detention under Section 3 of the KAAPA was passed by the District Magistrate.

6. The order passed under Section 3(2) was approved by the Government under Section 3(3). Advisory Board is yet to give its opinion, submit both sides. The detenu was arrested on 3/5/2009 and he continues to be under detention from that date.

7. Arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order of detention and the consequent detention on two specific grounds:

i) There is no proper application of mind and very vital information in the form of Ext.P15 order granting bail has been suppressed by the Superintendent of Police from the detaining authority and the detaining authority had not adverted to that aspect at all.

ii) The live link between the alleged culpable conduct and the order of detention has been snapped because of the delay in initiation of proceedings which commenced with the report dated 10/9/2008 and culminated with the order of detention dated 28/4/2009.

8. Ground No.i): The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the report dated 8.4.2009 was submitted by the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate (Ext.P2), it was specifically stated that the detenu is absconding and has not been arrested in the 3rd crime referred above - that is crime No.1783/08 of Perumbavoor police station. In the order of detention - in the grounds annexed to the order of detention, the District Magistrate has also stated specifically that the detenu is absconding and is not available for arrest. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent in paragraph 9, the 3rd respondent District Magistrate has repeated that