JUDGMENT : J.R. Vora, J. This Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging his detention in pursuance of the order passed against him by Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, on 26th of November, 2004, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act for short). The petitioner is under detention as bootlegger from 26th of November, 2004 in pursuance of the above order. 2. The grounds of detention as placed on record reveal that the detaining authority took into consideration the fact of filing of a solitary crime against the petitioner before Prohibition Police Station, North Zone, on 10th of November, 2004, under the Bombay Prohibition Act, whereby it was alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of 456 bottles of prohibited liquor and 84 bottles of prohibited beer. The detaining authority thoroughly and exhaustively examined the investigation papers in the above said case registered against the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was dealing in storing, selling and transporting the prohibited liquor. The detaining authority concluded that the activities of the petitioner were of bootlegging activities within the meaning of the PASA Act. The detaining authority reached to the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and adversely affecting the public health. The detaining authority also concluded that the bootlegging activities of the petitioner were required to be prevented forthwith. The detaining authority, therefore, reached to the subjective satisfaction that to prevent the bootlegging activities of the petitioner forthwith, there was no alternative, except to detain the petitioner under the PASA Act. The detaining authority, therefore, after taking into consideration other remedial measures available under the general law, passed the order of detention of the petitioner under the PASA Act, which is under challenge in this petition. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Kamlesh Kachhavab for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. I.M. Pandya for the respondents were heard at length. Affidavit-in-reply filed by the detaining authority as placed on record is also taken into consideration. 4. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Kamlesh Kachhavab for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. I.M. Pandya for the respondents were heard at length. Affidavit-in-reply filed by the detaining authority as placed on record is also taken into consideration. 4. Out of various grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner and opposed and controverted by learned AGP, it appears that this petition can be examined and disposed of on the sole issue as to whether the detaining authority applied mind properly to the relevant material placed before him in arriving at the subjective satisfaction. 5. The grounds of detention placed on record clearly indicate that the petitioner was in police custody on remand when the order of detention was served upon him. In this respect, the detaining authority reached to the subjective satisfaction that though the petitioner was in police custody on remand when order of detention was served upon him, but on police custody period being over, and on his production before the competent court, he was likely to file application for bail, and on so moving application for bail, the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. The detaining authority also concluded that on so releasing on bail, the petitioner was likely to continue his bootlegging activities. 6. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Amritlal v. Union Government, as reported in AIR 2000 SC 3675 . The Apex Court observed that there must be cogent materials before the officer passing the detention order that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. The inference must be drawn from the available material on record and must not be the ipse dixit of the officer passing the order of detention. Likelihood of detenu's moving application for bail, was not held to be cogent material and detention order based on such material was held liable to be quashed. 7. In the present case, while going through the grounds of detention as well as papers served upon the petitioner, it becomes clear that there was no material at all placed before the detaining authority to infer that, firstly, on police custody being over and on production of the petitioner before the competent court, he was likely to file applications for bail in both the cases. There was no any material at all also placed before the detaining authority to infer that on filing such bail applications, the petitioner was likely to be released on bail in both the cases. The inference drawn by the detaining authority appears to be the ipse dixit and not based upon any material, let alone, any cogent materials. The order of detention can be passed against a detenu even if he is in judicial custody, and there is no bar that, steps under the preventive law cannot be taken against such detenu. At the same time, when detenu is in custody, he being out of circulation, the question of continuing his illegal and objectionable activities would not arise. Therefore, in the matter of Amritlal (supra), the Supreme Court ruled that the detaining authority must rely upon cogent materials before passing the detention order that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. Material indicating that the custody of the detenu was likely to be ended, must be present and available with the detaining authority, in passing such detention order. While in the present case, there was no material at all that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, even he had not preferred any application for bail. In this view of the matter, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not valid, legal and in accordance with law because the same based upon no materials. The order under challenge therefore is required to be quashed on this ground alone. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, on 26th of November, 2004, against the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the PASA Act is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu Maheboobshah Anwarshah Fakir is hereby ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to be detained in jail for any other purpose. Rule made absolute. DS permitted. Petition allowed.