Preventive detention fails when relevant retractions and bail material are withheld from the detaining authority.

A preventive detention order is invalid if the detaining authority forms subjective satisfaction without all relevant material before it. Where retractions from confessional statements and bail proceedings were not placed before the authority, the decision could not rest on full and relevant facts, even if those documents had been considered earlier in administrative processing. The omission vitiated the detention for non-application of mind, and the detenu was entitled to release.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind because the detaining authority was not furnished with material facts such as the retractions from confessional statements and the bail proceedings.

Analysis: The detention was founded on subjective satisfaction under preventive detention law, but that satisfaction had to be formed on consideration of all relevant material. The record showed that the documents relied upon by the detenu were not placed before the detaining authority itself, even if they may have been considered earlier by a screening committee or during administrative processing. Since the detaining authority did not have before it the material facts that could have influenced the decision whether detention was necessary, the satisfaction was not based on full and relevant material and was therefore vitiated.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid for non-application of mind and the detenu was entitled to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is vitiated where relevant material bearing on the detention is withheld from the detaining authority, because subjective satisfaction must be formed on consideration of all material facts before the authority.

---