P.D.Dinakaran, J.: The petitioner, who is the detenu, challenges the order of detention dated 5.9.2003 dubbing him as boot-legger 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. 2. On 25.8.2003 at Petchiamman Koil Street, Thevaram, Theni District, the petitioner was found to be in possession of 60 litres of I.D. Arrack in a tractor tube and 4 litres of I.D. Arrack in 10 litre black colour plastic can. A case was registered in P.E.W.Crl.No.205 of 2003 under Sec.4(1)(i), 4(1)(aa) and 4(1-A) of T.N.P.Act read with 328, , I.P.C. on the file of Uthamapalayam Prohibition Enforcement Wing. Taking note of the above ground case and three adverse cases of like nature, the impugned order of detention was passed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order of detention on the only ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the order of detention, wherein he had stated in the grounds of detention that there is an imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, when the fact remains that the detenu had not preferred any bail application. 4. Every citizen in this country has the right to have recourse to law. He has the right to move the Court for bail when he is arrested under the ordinary law of the land. If the state thinks that he does not deserve bail the state could oppose the grant of bail. He cannot, however, be interdicted from moving the Court for bail by clamping an order of detention. The possibility of the Court granting bail may not be sufficient. Nor a bald statement that the person would repeat his criminal activities would be enough. There must also be credible information or cogent reasons apparent on the record that the detenu, if enlarged on bail, would act prejudicially to the interest of public order, videShashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. , (1988)1 S.C.C. 436 , at page 440. 5. “Imminent possibility” is relevant to the present circumstances and not relating to the future. There must also be credible information or cogent reasons apparent on the record that the detenu, if enlarged on bail, would act prejudicially to the interest of public order, videShashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. , (1988)1 S.C.C. 436 , at page 440. 5. “Imminent possibility” is relevant to the present circumstances and not relating to the future. The detaining authority has passed the impugned order of detention stating that there is an imminent possibility of coming out on bail, without any basis for such a possibility of occur in future, particularly, when the detenu has not resorted to file any bail application, which would reflect the non-application of mind of the detaining authority to the actual situation of the case. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and accordingly, the same is quashed. The detenu Kallumai alias Selvam is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. The Habeas Corpus petition is allowed.