S. Jagadeesan, J: The petitioner is the mother of one Vinayagam alias Selva Vinayagam who was detained in pursuance of the impugned order of detention dated 26.4.2001 passed by the second respondent, branding him as ‘Goonda’ under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Since the impugned order of detention is being challenged on two technical grounds, we do not propose to deal with the facts elaborately. 2. The first ground is that the detenu had been charged for the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and the Detaining Authority has merely stated that by filing bail application there is possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The Detaining Authority has totally failed to consider that for the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. the Courts below are very reluctant in granting bail and it is not a matter of course for the detenu being released on bail. Hence, the opinion or the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that there is imminent possibility that the detenu may come out on bail is not based upon the application of mind and as such the impugned order of detention is vitiated. 3. The next ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu made a request before the Advisory Board seeking permission to examine his mother Saroja as witness and to permit one Mr.R.K. Mani to assist the detenu. However, the Advisory Board conceded the request of the detenu to get the assistance of one Mr.R.K. Mani, but rejected the request of the detenu to examine his mother as witness. Such refusal on the part of the Advisory Board also vitiates the impugned order of detention. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, contended that it is not the universal practice that in all the cases where the accused was charged for the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. the bail being refused by the Court. Many a times, depending upon the circumstances of the case, the accused are being released. Hence, there is nothing wrong on the part of the Detaining Authority in having the subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being come out on bail. 5. Many a times, depending upon the circumstances of the case, the accused are being released. Hence, there is nothing wrong on the part of the Detaining Authority in having the subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being come out on bail. 5. So far as the second ground is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the proceedings of the Advisory Board clearly reveals that the detenu has requested to hear the representation of the detenu’s relative Thiru Mani and the Advisory Board has also heard the representation of Thiru Mani. From this it is clear that though the detenu sent a representation seeking permission for the assistance of Thiru Mani and to examine his mother as witness, before the Advisory Board he has sought for the permission only to get the assistance of his representative. Hence, it cannot be said that the Advisory Board did not concede the request of the detenu to examine his mother as witness. 6. We carefully considered the above contentions of both the counsel. We find some force in the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor. With regard to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, one has to consider as to whether there is any possibility of the detenu coming out on bail or not. In our opinion, in no case it can be said that the accused can never be released on bail either pending investigation or pending trial. When there is immediate possibility of the accused moving for bail, one cannot read the mind of the Court as to whether the accused will be released on bail or not. In most of the cases, the accused are being released on bail at least on condition that he shall be away from the scene of occurrence. When that is the position, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail cannot be said to be without application of mind or without any material. Hence, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected and accordingly the same is rejected. 7. When that is the position, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail cannot be said to be without application of mind or without any material. Hence, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected and accordingly the same is rejected. 7. So far as the second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is true that the detenu made a written representation before the Advisory Board, seeking permission to have the assistance of a friend and to examine a witness. However, the proceedings of the Advisory Board refers to the request made by the detenu in respect of one alone which was conceded. In this case, the hearing of the representation of the detenu’s friend was permitted at the request of the detenu. When the Advisory Board had recorded such pleadings, we have to hold that before the Advisory Board the detenu might have confined for the only request of hearing the representation of his friend. 8. We are forced to draw such an inference due to the fact that the same counsel Mr.Swamidoss Manoharan argued three H.C.Ps. today. In all the three cases the identical point had been raised. From this we infer that the counsel might have drafted the petition and handed over to the detenu with specific instruction to confine himself with one request before the Advisory Board so that at a later point of time with regard to the other request an issue can be raised before the Court as if the Advisory Board has rejected. 9. One thing is clear that a perusal of the representation in all the cases are verbatim similar. This would establish that even if the counsel is not the author of the representation, in all the three cases, the author of the representation is one and the same. It is highly doubtful when the detenus are different how the representation alone are identical and the ground raised thereby is also identical. We have no hesitation to hold that the ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a pre-conceived one and accordingly the detenu had been tutored. Hence we do not find any merit. 10. It is highly doubtful when the detenus are different how the representation alone are identical and the ground raised thereby is also identical. We have no hesitation to hold that the ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a pre-conceived one and accordingly the detenu had been tutored. Hence we do not find any merit. 10. In view of the specific observation of the Advisory Board in their proceedings dated 1.6.2001 “the detenu has requested to hear the representation of the detenu’s relative Thiru Mani. The Board has also heard the representation of Thiru Mani”. we are of the view that so far as the request of the detenu to examine his mother as a witness had been waived by the detenu before the Advisory Board. Hence there is no substance in this ground also and as such the same cannot be countenanced. 11. Accordingly the H.C.P. is dismissed as devoid of merits.