Preventive detention and subjective satisfaction: non-supply of merely referred documents was not fatal, but ignored bail refusal vitiated detention.

In preventive detention, only documents relied on for the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu, so non-supply of materials merely referred to in the grounds and relating to separate proceedings did not vitiate the detention order where no suppression of material facts was shown. However, an order rejecting bail in another case was a vital circumstance bearing on the likelihood of release from custody, and failure to place or consider it before the detaining authority amounted to non-application of mind. The judgment therefore sustained one detention order and quashed the other, granting only partial relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-supply of documents relating to other cases referred to in the detention grounds and alleged suppression of material facts vitiated the preventive detention order in one petition; (ii) Whether non-placement and non-consideration of the order rejecting bail in the other case amounted to non-application of mind and invalidated the detention order.

Issue (i): Whether non-supply of documents relating to other cases referred to in the detention grounds and alleged suppression of material facts vitiated the preventive detention order in one petition.

Analysis: The documents relating to the other proceedings were only referred to in the grounds of detention and were not treated as the basis of the detention. Only documents relied on for reaching the subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu. The separate cases were also found to be independent proceedings under different enactments, and the record did not justify an inference that the sponsoring authority had suppressed material facts affecting the detaining authority's satisfaction.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the detention order in that petition was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether non-placement and non-consideration of the order rejecting bail in the other case amounted to non-application of mind and invalidated the detention order.

Analysis: The bail rejection order was treated as a vital and relevant circumstance bearing on the question whether the detenu, already in custody, was likely to be released on bail. Since that material was not placed before or considered by the detaining authority, the satisfaction recorded for preventive detention was held to be vitiated. In preventive detention matters, exclusion from consideration of material that might reasonably affect the decision amounts to failure of application of mind.

Conclusion: The detention order in that petition was quashed and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other lawful custody.

Final Conclusion: The common judgment sustained one detention order and set aside the other, resulting in partial relief to the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, only relied-upon material need be supplied to the detenu, but failure to place a vital and relevant circumstance before the detaining authority, where it may reasonably affect subjective satisfaction, vitiates the detention for non-application of mind.

---