Judgment :- Mishra, J. The petitioner herein has been detained on the ground as under: "Thiru Muthiah alias Muthusamy, male aged 20/90, son of Chitravel, Suruli Street, B.Meenakshipuram, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Madurai District is a habitual criminal. He is a Goonda. He has come to adverse notice to the following cases: 2. A detention order under Sec.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982) has been made on Thiru Muthiah alias Muthusami son of Chitravel, male aged 20/90, Suruli Street, B.Meenakshipuram, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Madurai District vide Order C.M.P.No.9 of 1990 dated 16. 1990. 3. The grounds on which the said detention order has been made are as follows: On 15. 90 at 11.00 Hrs., one Sanjeevi, s/ o.Marakkamalai 3rd ward, Surili Street, B.Meenakshipuram appeared before Thiru G.Marimuthu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bodi Rural Police Station along with one Thiru Muthia, s/ o.Chitravel of B.Meenakshipuram and preferred a complaint. The complaint is as follows: Thiru Sanjeevi is a resident of B.Meenakshipuram village. He is running a hire cycle shop. On 15. 1990 at about 09.00 hrs., when the above said Thiru Sanjeevi was standing in front of the Milk Society building at B.Meenakshipuram, Thiru Muthiah alias Muthusami, s/o.Chitravel, B.Meenakshipuram, came from northern side hiding something in his dhothy and holding with his hand. Thiru Sanjeevi approached him and questioned him "Thiru Muthiah replied that there is nothing and tried to leave the place abruptly. Thiru Sanjeevi held his dhothy and found a country bomb wrapped in a red tape held in his right hand. When Thiru Sanjeevi reprimanded that he was only responsible for planting country bombs in their community building and Karuppasami Koil and called the persons nearby to catch Thiru Muthiah to hand over him to police, Thiru Muthiah retorted by saying and raised his hand and tried to throw the bomb. The nearby people and the people who were in the shops nearby ran way helter skelter in panic and hid themselves behind the buildings apprehending danger to their lives. The frightened nearby shop keepers closed their shutters and ran away out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. The passers-by ran away and ‘hid themselves behind the buildings. The road has a deserted look. The frightened nearby shop keepers closed their shutters and ran away out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. The passers-by ran away and ‘hid themselves behind the buildings. The road has a deserted look. Thiru Sanjeevi ran and hid behind a building and cried Thiru Sanjeevi in an attempt to catch Thiru Muthiah, collected one Chinnakali, Son of Chellamuthu, Kodiyan son of Ramar and Guruvu son of Ponniah and approached Thiru Muthiah from behind and caught hold of him and seized the country bomb from him. Thiru Sanjeevi and the other three persons brought Thiru Muthiah with the country bomb to Bodi Rural Police-Station. On the complaint of Thiru Sanjeevi, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bodi Rural Police Station arrested the accused Thiru Muihiah, seized the bomb and registered a case in Bodi Rural P.S.Cr.No.127/90 under Secs.4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 9(B) of Explosives Act read with Sec.506(II), I.P.C. Thiru R.Kalaimohan, Inspector of Police, Bodi Circle, took up investigation in this case. While interrogating Thiru Muthiah, it was found out that Thiru Muthiah was responsible for the cases in Bodi Rural P.S.Cr.No.99/ 90 and 101/90 and confessed that he had only planted the country bombs on the door of Pallar Community building on 24. 90 and Thevar Community. Karuppasami Koil Building on 24. 90 respectively. On his confession, raw-materials and components kept for manufacturing bombs, were seized from his house in the presence of respectable witnesses. Thiru R.Kaliamohan, Inspector of Police took the articles to Bodi Rural Police Station and compared them with the articles and components found in the bombs already seized and kept at the station. They exactly tallied with each other. Thiru Muthiah was sent for remand to the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Usilampatti on 15. 90. He was lodged in the sub Jail, Usilampatti as remand prisoner and subsequently released on condition bail by the Sessions Judge, Madurai, on 35. 90. All the bombs seized in Bodi Rural P.S.Cr.Nos.99/90, 101/90 and 127/90 were defused and the residues were sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Usilampatti, in separate bottles. On requisition by the Inspector, the Court sent the residues in bottles for chemical analysis. The chemical examiner has issued certificates to the effect that the residues sent in Cr.No.99/90 contain sulphur, sulphate, Nitrate, Potassium and aluminium and a combination of all these substances in solid form are explosives. On requisition by the Inspector, the Court sent the residues in bottles for chemical analysis. The chemical examiner has issued certificates to the effect that the residues sent in Cr.No.99/90 contain sulphur, sulphate, Nitrate, Potassium and aluminium and a combination of all these substances in solid form are explosives. The residues sent in Cr.No. 101/90 contain sulphur, Sulphate, nitrate, Potassium and aluminium and a combination of all these substances in solid form are explosives. The residues sent in Cr.No.127/90 contain sulphur, nitrate, potassium, and aluminium and combination of all these substances in solid form is explosive. Therefore, it is crystal clear that Thiru Muthiah had planted explosives and attempted to throw on the public and cause loss of lives; and destruction of properties. Aim of Thiru Muthiah is to create panic exploding bombs primarily and afterwards sell bombs to fabulous amount to those who went to seek revenge upon some body else and even to create communal clashes, the offence under Sec.506(Il), I.P.C, an act of Criminal intimidation, punishable under Chapter XXII of I.P.C. By committing the above described grave crimes in the dwelling locality of B.Meenakshipuram Thiru Muthiah has created an alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the general public in the area and has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The investigation of the case is not yet over. 4. I am satisfied that on the materials mentioned above, if Thiru Muthiah alias Muthusami is left to remain at large, he will indulge in further activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and further the recourse to normal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore I consider it is necessary to detain him in custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order." 5. We have quoted the relevant portion of the grounds of detention only to find out that none of the background allegations suggest the commission of any offence falling under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code. We have quoted the relevant portion of the grounds of detention only to find out that none of the background allegations suggest the commission of any offence falling under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code. A goonda had been defined under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 to mean a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences, punishable under Chapter XIV or Chapter XVII of Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act XLV of 1860). The petitioner has thus been wrongly apprehended as a goonda. 6. In the grounds of detention, mention has been made to Sec.506 (Part II), I.P.C., which falls in Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code. But a closer look to the Tacts constituting the offence leaves no manner of doubt that Sec.506 Part II, I.P.C, is not attracted. Moreover, the petitioner is said to have planted a bomb, described as a country made bomb. It is stated in the grounds that the Chemical Examiner has issued a certificate to the effect that the residue sent to him contained sulphur, sulphate, nitrate, potassium and aluminium and a combination of all these substances in solid form is explosive. Thus, what at best has been found is that by a certain portion of sulphur, sulphate, nitrate, potassium and aluminium a certain explosive had been created, but that it was a bomb and not a cracker is just a conjecture. The grounds, in our view, are wholly inadequate to attract Sec.3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. It is only when it is found that the detenu is engaged or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a goonda which affect adversely, or arc likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order that the order of detention can be sustained. The detaining authority’s conjectures go beyond comprehension. No inference is permissible unless there are foundational facts. The detaining authority has stated that the aim of the detenu was to create panic by exploding bombs primarily and afterwards sell the bombs for fabulous amounts to those who want to wreak vengeance upon somebody else and to create communal clashes. There is no material to show the petitioner ever exploded any bomb. The detaining authority has stated that the aim of the detenu was to create panic by exploding bombs primarily and afterwards sell the bombs for fabulous amounts to those who want to wreak vengeance upon somebody else and to create communal clashes. There is no material to show the petitioner ever exploded any bomb. There is also no material to show that he ever sold or made attempt to sell any bomb. There is also no material to show that there were any likely purchasers of bombs from him who wanted to wreak vengeance upon somebody else or explosives or bombs prepared by him were likely to be used in communal clashes. Such conjectures cannot be made the basis of preventive detention on the ground of adverse effect upon the maintenance of public order. 7. The detention order, in our view, is bad in law. The petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith. The petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner forthwith from custody unless he is wanted in connection with any other case.