ORDER
S.T. Ramalingam, J.
1. The detenu K. Ramaswami has filed this petition tinder Article 226of the Constitution of Indian to set aside the order of detention dated 31.8.1989 in G.O Ms. No. SR. 1/11/46-5/89, and set him at liberty.
2. The detenu is a native of Alathur village. He became a citizen of Singapore long ago. His wife and sons are living in Alathur. The detenu arrived at Madras Air Port by Air India flight oh 20th July, 1989. After immigration clearance, he was directed for customs clearance. He declared to the Superintendent of Customs in charge that he had no contraband except used clothes and one National Washing Machine. On suspicion, his baggages were searched. On close examination of the washing machine, the Customs Officials detected a packet which was kept concealed. On opening the packet, the officials recovered 10 gold bars each weighing 10 tolas. All the ten gold bars bore the foreign mark. After following the procedure, he was arrested on 20th July, 1989. He preferred a bail petition on 24.7.1989 before the Magistrate dealing with economic offences at Egmore. That bail petition was dismissed. Later on he moved another petition for bail before the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, on 1.8.1989. That petition was also dismissed. He renewed by way of another petition on 22.8.1989 before the Principal Sessions Judge. That petition was also dismissed. Later on, he moved for bail on 24.8.1989 before this Court in Criminal M.P. No. 10429 of 1989 and this Court granted bail directing the detenu to report before the Assistant Collector of Customs daily at 10 a.m. He actually came out of bail on 29th August, 1989. On 30th August, 1989 there was “Bharath bandh”. The detenu reported to the Assistant Collector, Customs, on 30.8.1989. When he went to the Assistant Collector of Customs, as usual, on 1.9.1989 for reporting he was served with the order of detention. According to the Department, the proposal for detention order has been initiated as early as 21st August, 1989.
3. The detenu questions the order of detention on various grounds. However, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument to the only ground, namely, that the detaining authority, while passing the order of detention, has not taken into consideration the order of bail granted by the High Court eight days earlier to the passing of the detention order.
4. A perusal of the order of detention shows that the detaining authority was under the misapprehension that the detenu was still in central prison as a remand prisoner. This, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, vitiates the order of detention. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in answer to this point, contends that since the proposal for detention has been initiated as early as 21st August, 1989, the non-placement of the event that has taken place subsequent to the initiation of the proposal, is not germane to the order of detention which will not prejudice the detenu. In fact, if the detaining authority is aware of the bail granted in favour of the detenu, that will give another ground for passing the order of detention.
5. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. How the mind of detaining authority would react in the event of bail order being placed before it, is not a matter for us to decide. The bail order has been passed by this Court on 24.8.1989 and the order of detention has been made on 31.8.1989. In between the order of bail and the order of detention, eight days were available for the sponsoring authority to inform the detaining authority as to what has taken place on 24th August, 1989. Even if one excludes Saturday and Sunday that intervened, there are still six days available to the sponsoring authority to feed the detaining authority with the subsequent events that had taken place. The fact that the detenu obtained an order of bail is a relevant fact which the detaining authority ought to have taken into consideration at the time of passing the order of detention. The matter would have been different if the message conveyed by the sponsoring authority-about the bail granted is in transit. But that is not the case here. The sponsoring authority totally failed to apprise the order passed by this Court in the bail petition preferred by the detenu. As such, the order of detention is vitiated. In fact, paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention shows that the detaining authority was under the impression that the detenu was still in Central Prison, Madras, as a remand prisoner, which is opposed to reality, and as such the order of detention is liable to be set aside.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the petition, set aside the order of detention and direct the petitioner-detenu to be set at liberty unless he is required in connection with some other case.