Judgment :- Venkataswami, J.: The petitioner, who has been detained as a bootlegger under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the Order of detention contending inter alia that the detaining authority has stated in the grounds of detention order that the petitioner was arrested and released on bail by the police. There was no material before the Detaining Authority to make such a statement. This statement has been made in the process of arriving at subjective satisfaction to clamp the order of detention. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detention order is vitiated. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the sponsoring authority has filed an affidavit in which the fact that the petitioner was released on bail finds a place. According to him, though the copy of the affidavit was not served on the detenu, that will not vitiate the detention order. 4. We have taken the view in Ravi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, W.P.Nos.9240 and 9346 of 1992, dated 111.1993, that the affidavit of the sponsoring authority cannot be treated as a material placed before the detaining authority and, therefore, that cannot be taken into account. We have discussed this issue in detail in the above said order. Following the ratio laid down in that ease, we hold that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority, based on a fact that the petitioner was arrested and released on bail on 15. 1992 by the Police and she may indulge in such prejudicial activities in future, being without any material, the detention cannot be sustained. Consequently, the detention order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the detenu forthwith from custody unless she is liable to be detained in custody for some other cause.