Preventive detention declarations require all vital bail orders before the authority; omission can vitiate the detention decision.

In preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act, a declaration under Section 9 must be based on full and fair consideration of all vital material bearing on the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. A rejecting order on a bail application was treated as a relevant judicial document because it directly affected the detenu's custody status and could influence whether the declaration should be made. The authority's admitted failure to place and consider that order before making the declaration meant that a material document was omitted from the decision-making process. On that reasoning, the declaration was held vitiated and the continued detention unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declaration under Section 9 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was vitiated because the rejecting order on the bail application was not placed before or considered by the declaring authority, and whether the consequent continued detention could be sustained.

Analysis: A declaration under Section 9 enlarges the period within which the case may be placed before the Advisory Board and extends the detention period. For that reason, any material having a potential bearing on the declaring authority's subjective satisfaction must be placed before it. The rejection order on the bail application was a vital and relevant document, since it represented a judicial determination directly connected with the detenu's custody status and could influence the decision whether a declaration should be made. The authority's admitted failure to consider that order meant that the subjective satisfaction was reached without a material document that ought to have been before it. Preventive detention and declaration orders require full consideration of all relevant and vital material; suppression or non-placement of such material renders the decision unsustainable.

Conclusion: The declaration under Section 9 was vitiated and could not be sustained. The continued detention was therefore illegal.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the declaration order was quashed, and release was directed unless the petitioner was required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, failure to place before the declaring authority a relevant judicial order on bail that may bear upon its subjective satisfaction vitiates the declaration made under Section 9.

---