has not applied his mind, in the absence of an order remanding the detenu to judicial custody and his application for bail before him, while passing Ext.P1 detention order. Learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor, relying on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in K. Varadharaj v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2002) 6 SCC 735], submitted that, in all cases, the production and consideration of documents regarding judicial custody and chances of releasing on bail are not required. That the detenu was under judicial custody in Crime No.490 of 2011 with effect from 27.12.2011 is not a disputed fact. It is also an admitted fact that the detenu was released on bail in Crime No.490 of 2011 by order dated 24.4.2012 on B.A.No. 2548 of 2012 of this Court. So, on the next day of passing Ext.P1 detention order, the detenu was granted bail by this Court. In view of this fact, the apprehension entertained by the third respondent in Ext.P3 report that the detenu was likely to seek bail in Crime No.490 of 2011 cannot be said to be without basis. In such a circumstance, keeping in view of the criminal past of the detenu and his frequency of indulging in criminal activities, the third respondent submitted in his report that the detenu should not be allowed to move out of custody and requested for preventive detention in
