Antony Dominic, J.

Petitioner is the father of Aneesh alias Ani. Aneesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu- for short) is an accused in Crime Nos.1646/12, 1734/12, 1826/12 and 1450/13 of the Nemom Police Station. On the basis that the offences alleged against the detenu warrant proceedings against him under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, by classifying him as a 'known rowdy' as provided under Section 2(p)(iii) of the Act and by detaining him under Section 3 thereof, the sponsoring authority submitted Exts.P1 and P2 reports to the 3rd respondent, the detaining authority under the Act. Such reports made by the sponsoring authority under Section 3(1) of the Act were considered by the detaining authority, who by Ext.P3 order dated 17/12/13 classified the detenu as a 'known rowdy' and ordered that he be detained under Section 3 of the Act. Accordingly, the detenu was arrested and detained on 20/12/13 and since then, he is under detention at the Central Prison, Thiruvanan-thapuram.

2. By Ext.P5 order dated 27/12/13, the Government approved the detention as provided under Section 3(3) of the Act. The detenu submitted Ext.P6 representation through counsel to the Government, which was rejected by Ext.P7 order. The detention was thereafter confirmed by the Government by Ext.P8 order dated 18/2/14 passed under Section 10(4) of the Act. It is in this background this writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 order of detention and with a prayer to set the detenu at liberty by issuing a writ of habeas corpus.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions who appeared for the respondents.

4. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the detention order is bad for non-application of mind mainly on account of the fact that there was default on the part of the sponsoring authority in placing Ext.P9 order enlarging the detenu on bail in Crime No.1450/13 and that the sponsoring authority is also guilty of not considering the bail order while passing Ext.P3 order of detention. However, learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions contended that the bail order and the conditions thereof were not relevant to Ext.P3 order and that at any rate, according to him, it was evident that even the conditions of the bail order could not have prevented the detenu from continuing his anti-social activities. Therefore, according to the counsel, Ext.P3 order cannot be held illegal.

5. We have considered the submissions made.

6. It is true that in this case, the detenu is an accused in four crimes registered at the Nemom Police Station. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C are also pending against the detenu. It was at that stage proceedings under the Act were initiated and by Ext.P3 order, the detenu was ordered to be kept under preventive detention. That order of preventive detention was passed against the detenu on 17/12/13. However, before passing that order, by Ext.P9 order passed on 28/10/13, the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Neyyattinkara had granted bail to the detenu subject to the conditions mentioned therein, among which one of the conditions was that the detenu shall not commit any similar crime during the bail period.

7. It is subsequent to the bail order that Exts.P1 and P2 reports under Section 3(1) of the Act were made by the sponsoring authority on 26/11/13 and 12/12/13 respectively. These representations do not anywhere make any reference to either Ext.P9 bail order dated 28/10/13 or the conditions imposed by the trial court. Similarly, when on 17/12/13, the detaining authority passed Ext.P3 order, Ext.P9 bail order dated 28/10/13 was not made available to him by the sponsoring authority and there is no reference to that order in Ext.P3 detention order.

8. The relevance of the order passed by the trial court enlarging the detenu on bail before detention order under Section 3 is passed, ha