Judgment :- V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. The petitioner herein challenges the detention order passed against one Anandan alias Athiradi Anandan which is dated 1-7-1999 and passed by the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, directing the detention of the detenu under view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In support of this order, the authority concerned has given the grounds. It is suggested that on 30-11-1997 one Dhandapani and his son came to Coimbatore Medical College to pay homage to the body of a Police Constable who was killed. At that time, the persons who had gathered there attacked the said Dhandapani and his son with an intention to cause their death and caused injuries. This was done at the instigation of the Anandan alias Athiradi Anandan and Sampath alias Arjun Sampath who were present there at that time. It is then suggested that these two persons instigated the mob to damage the Ambassador cars and the other vehicles as a result of which, the two cars were damaged and destroyed in fire. 2. It is pointed out that the witnesses have stated categorically that all this was done at the instigation of Anandan alias Athiradi Ananthan and Sampath alias Arjun Sampath. It is then stated that one Maheswaran alias Mahesh had stated that he, with others, had attempted to commit the murder of the said Dhandapani. It is then pointed out that the concerned Anandan and Sampath were already in Central Prison in judicial remand in connection with some other murder case and they filed bail application for their arrest in the above mentioned two cases, viz., Cr. Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1997 registered two cases, viz., Cr. Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1997 registered by B-4, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore. It is then pointed out that on 7-6-1999 the said detenu was remanded to judicial custody in respect of the above mentioned two offences and his remand was extended. Further, till the order was passed, the investigation was not completed. It was stated that because of this act, the even tempo of the society was greatly paralysed, the commercial establishments and educational institutions remained closed, even the essential institutions remained closed and the essential services were disturbed and that large contingents of police has to be deployed to defuse the mounting tension. 3. It was stated that because of this act, the even tempo of the society was greatly paralysed, the commercial establishments and educational institutions remained closed, even the essential institutions remained closed and the essential services were disturbed and that large contingents of police has to be deployed to defuse the mounting tension. 3. The statement of one Mahesh alias Maheswaran was also relied on to suggest that the detenu had played a vital role in disturbing the public order. It was then pointed out that the detenu was in judicial custody and that he was ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 16-6-1999 in both these crime numbers which were for the offence under S. 435 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further stated that B-4 Police Station had moved a petition for the alteration of the Section by way of addition and that, the Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore had rejected the sureties on the ground that the offences were non-bailable. It was pointed out that an application for cancellation of bail order was also pending vide dated 21-6-1999. It was expressed that in the said case, Anandan had not come out on bail so far, but, there was always a possibility of his filing a bail application in the higher Courts and coming out on bail. It was therefore, expressed that if he comes out on bail, he was likely to indulge in such further activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It was on these grounds that the detention was ordered. 4. We have deliberately given the grounds in detail. Learned counsel for the petitioner made only two submissions. By first submission, learned counsel points out that the order contains factual mistakes which would show non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Learned counsel then further argues by way of his second contention that the order is dated 1-7-1999 for the incident which took place on 30-11-1997. Learned counsel says that there is no live link between the so called prejudicial activities on the part of the detenue and the resultant detention and whatever the link was there has been snapped because of the delay of about one year and eight months. 5. Learned counsel says that there is no live link between the so called prejudicial activities on the part of the detenue and the resultant detention and whatever the link was there has been snapped because of the delay of about one year and eight months. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is no explanation whatsoever on the part of the detaining authority and there is nothing to suggest in the order that the concerned authority was alive to this delay. Learned counsel also points out that there is absolutely no explanation offered by the detaining authority for this enormous delay. According to the learned counsel, the only reason why this order was passed was that the Honorable Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had made a statement on 30-5-1999 in the press that these two detenus were already detained when he was tried to be cornored by the Press as to why there was no action against the Hindus and as to why action was directed only against Muslims. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that it is for this reason that the said detention order came to be passed and it was only for that purpose that further exercises were made arresting the detenu on 7-6-1999 for the offence which took place on 30-11-1997. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the detention order. Concerning the first point learned counsel took us more particularly to paragraph 9 of the detention order and drew our attention to the following portions therein : "I am aware that on the petition filed by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, B-4. Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore City on 16-6-1999 for the alteration of Section in these cases into one u/Ss. 147, 148, 149, 435, IPC and u/Ss. 4 and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 before the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore and the Court rejected the sureties on the ground that the offences are non-bailable. Further, on 21-6-1999, the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, B-4 Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore City had filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore to cancel the bail granted to Anandan alias Athiradi Anandan. I am aware that Anandan alias Athiradi Anandan has not come out on bail so far. Further, on 21-6-1999, the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, B-4 Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore City had filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore to cancel the bail granted to Anandan alias Athiradi Anandan. I am aware that Anandan alias Athiradi Anandan has not come out on bail so far. However, there is a possibility and likelihood of his filing a bail application in the higher Courts and coming out on bail." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from this one gets an impression that firstly in pursuance of the order granting bail on 16-6-1999, the petitioner has offered two sureties and those sureties were rejected by the Magistrate as the offences involved were non-bailable. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no such sureties were offered either by the detenu as there was no question of offering any such surety since, the detenu was already behind the bars and in judicial remand in respect of other cases in Cr. Nos. 1891, 1892, 1893 and 1898 of 1997. He points out that the concerned authority was not even aware of the fact that the petitioner for the first time came to be arrested on 15-12-1997 for the offence under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the Complaint of one Dhandapani that the accused persons amongst others had tried to commit his murder. The accused were released on bail on 12-1-1998. Thereafter, they came to be arrested on 21-11-1998 in respect of the incident on 29-11-1997 and 30-11-1997 vide Cr. Nos. 1891, 1892, 1893 and 1898 of 1997. Learned counsel points out that the arrest on 21-11-1998 as also the arrest on 15-12-1997 were for the incidents on 30-11-1997. 8. He points out that while the detenu was in judicial remand in respect of Cr. Nos. 1891, 1892, 1893 and 1898 of 1997 for the first time on 7-6-1999 they were produced on Prisoner Transfer Warrant (PT Warrant) before the Judicial Magistrate and it was shown as if they were arrested for offences covered in Cr. Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1997 which again is in respect of the incident dated 30-11-1997. Nos. 1891, 1892, 1893 and 1898 of 1997 for the first time on 7-6-1999 they were produced on Prisoner Transfer Warrant (PT Warrant) before the Judicial Magistrate and it was shown as if they were arrested for offences covered in Cr. Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1997 which again is in respect of the incident dated 30-11-1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner naturally raised a question that a detailed reading of the grounds does not show whether the detaining authority was even aware of the fact that the detenu was in judicial remand in the earlier referred arrest dated 21-11-1997. He points out that the detaining authority has remained completely silent about that fact and has chosen to restrict to the incident covered in Cr. Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1997 alone in which the atleast is shown to be 7-6-1999. From this learned counsel points out that it is clear that the authority did not even refer to the arrest of the detenu and his judicial remand in respect of Cr. Nos. 1891, 1892, 1893 and 1898 of 1997. 9. He points out that at no point of time the surety was offered and at no point was it rejected much less, because, the offences involved were non-bailable. According to the learned counsel, therefore, these factual mistakes show the total non-application of mind. There is undoubtedly a statement in the grounds to the following effect - "I am aware that Anandan alias Athiradi Anandan has not come out on bail so far." However, there is nothing in the order suggesting that the detenu is in the judicial custody or remand in respect of some other offence and not the offences covered by Cr. Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1997 which are the basis for making the present detention order. The error is loud and clear. It does show that the detaining authority was not even aware of that fact. That apart, it is clear from the record that at no point of time, the surety was offered and rejected by the Court much less on the ground that the offences were nonbailable. This incorrect statement, therefore, would be clear example of non-application of mind. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor however, tried to draw our attention to the affidavit of the sponsoring authority. This incorrect statement, therefore, would be clear example of non-application of mind. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor however, tried to draw our attention to the affidavit of the sponsoring authority. We are afraid that the said affdavit does not at all help the respondents because, it also does not nowhere say that sureties were offered by the detenu and were rejected as such, by the Judicial Magistrate. A reference in the affidavit is to be found in paragraph 4 where it is stated that on 16-6-1999 the Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore ordered bail on the bail application filed on behalf of the detenu but, the detenu continues to be a remand prisoner at Central Prison, Salem as a petition was filed on 16-6-1999 regarding the alteration of Section of law in this case and the sureties offered were not accepted. We are afraid that this affidavit is insufficient as one fails to understand as to where from the detaining authority has brought about the position that the concerned detenu offered sureties and the same has been rejected because the offences were non-bailable. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also tried to draw our attention towards the documents and pointed out that from those remand orders, it could be seen that the sureties were offered and rejected. We are unable to find even from those pages, specially from page 52 that sureties were offered and rejected and because of that the detenu continued to be in judicial remand. In fact, the detenu continued to be in judicial remand not because, the sureties were refused by the Magistrate but, because the detenu was already in judicial remand in Cr. Nos. 1891, 1892, 1893 and 1898 of 1997. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor suggested that however, the fact remains that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in judicial remand and that was sufficient. We do not think so. There has to be active application of mind and such errors would only show that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the fact as to in what offences the detenu was in judicial remand. This would, therefore, be a clear example of non-application of mind. 13. We do not think so. There has to be active application of mind and such errors would only show that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the fact as to in what offences the detenu was in judicial remand. This would, therefore, be a clear example of non-application of mind. 13. As if this is not sufficient, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that a detailed reading of the grounds would suggest that the authorities for the first time woke up in respect of Cr. Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1997 only on 7-6-1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that nothing new came to the notice of the concerned authorities in respect of incident dated 30-11-1997. He points out that the detenu was provided with police protection and as such, there was no question of his absconding or otherwise. That apart, the detenu was already in judicial custody in respect of a major offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code covered by Cr. Nos. 1891, 1892, 1893 and 1898 of 1997. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner wondered as to how for the first time on 7-6-1999 it dawned upon the investigating agency to arrest the detenu who was already in judicial custody and produce before the Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore under a PT Warrant. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on 7-6-1999 the offence alleged against the detenu was under S. 435 of the Indian Penal Code which was a bailable offence. He points out that for the first time on 16-6-1999 when the accused were granted bail in respect of those two crime numbers, the prosecution sought to move a petition for adding certain other non-bailable sections. Learned counsel suggests that right from 30-11-1997 the authorities were aware that the detenu was concerned with the incident dated 30-11-1997. Yet absolutely nothing was done and it was after on full year and seven months that it dawned upon the authority not only to proceed against the detenu in two crime numbers vide Cr. Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1997 under S. 435 of the Indian Penal code but also to subsequently pass the detention order. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this abnormal gap of time is nowhere tried to be explained in the whole order. Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1997 under S. 435 of the Indian Penal code but also to subsequently pass the detention order. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this abnormal gap of time is nowhere tried to be explained in the whole order. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in T. A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, 1990 Cri LJ 578 : ( AIR 1990 SC 225 ) and further relying on the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Ahamed Mohaideen v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 Cri LJ 3488 : ( AIR 1999 SC 2141 , learned counsel points out that the enormous delay of one year and eight months was bound to be explained or at least it had to be reflected in the grounds that the detaining authority was alive to the delay and it thought it fit to pass the order of detention in spite of the delay. We have deliberately quoted the grounds earlier in details as we find that the only reason given for detention is the involvement of the detenu in the offence under S. 435 of the Indian Penal Code covered vide Cr. Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1997. If that is so, then, it has to be said that there is absolutely no live link between the so called prejudicial activity dated 30-11-1997 and the resultant detention order dated 1-7-1999. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that all this was done by Detaining authority because of the press statement made by the Honourable Chief Minister on 30-5-1999 that this detenu and one other were already detained which was factually incorrect. He challenges the bona fides of the action. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that as per the press report, the Honourable Chief Minister made a statement as it was tried to be suggested to the Honourable Chief Minister that action only against Muslims was being taken and the Hindus were not being touched. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he has raised a specific ground that in order to shield the incorrect statement by the Chief Minister and further to satisfy that statement belated arrest was made on 7-6-1999 and the impugned order came to be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he has raised a specific ground that in order to shield the incorrect statement by the Chief Minister and further to satisfy that statement belated arrest was made on 7-6-1999 and the impugned order came to be passed. This has been stoutly denied by the first respondent by filing a counter who has tried to say that this was solely his decision and he had got nothing to do with the motive of pleasing the Government or for that matter any authority of the Government. We would not go into that question for the simple reason that the whole contention depends upon a press report to which we would not normally refer to while dealing with the question of preventive detention. A press report cannot be relied on by us to hold that the Hon'ble Chief Minister had made the statement attributed to him. 17. Since the petitioner can succeed on the two question viz. non-application of mind and total absence of the live link between the prejudicial activity and the resultant detention order, we would rather not go into that question and would leave it at that. 18. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenue is directed to be liberated forthwith unless his detention is required by any other authority in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.