Judgment :- (Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the body of the petitioner namely, Yasar before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith by calling for the records pertaining to the detention order dated 18.12.2004 made in Cr.M.P.No.4/NSA/2004 C1 passed by the second respondent and quash the same.) R. Balasubramanian, J. The detenu under the National Security Act is the petitioner. By order dated 18.12.2004, he had been detained on the ground that if he is at large, the security of the State is likely to be affected. Mr.N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted the following points in attacking the order of detention. "(i) Only one case against the detenu had been registered for an offence under Section 394 I.P.C. - which occurrence is shown to have taken place on 22.11.2004 and that solitary instance by itself cannot be the basis for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the security of the State, being at peril. (ii) The disclosures stated to have been made by Madheswaran on 25.11.2004 are not true. In any event, it is a concocted version and if really those disclosures are true, then on they making out a cognizable offence, the police ought to have registered a crime. In as much as, the police have not registered the crime, the disclosures stated to have been made by Madheswaran on 25.11.2004 cannot be the basis for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that if the detenu is at large, the security of the State would be at peril. (iii) The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to come out on bail is not supported by cogent materials and therefore for want of application of mind to the relevant material, the detention order must be set aside. (iv) On and after commencement of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, there is a statutory bar created under Section 17 of the said Act not to pass any detention order in respect of bootlegger, drug-offender, forest offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or slum-grabber or video pirates and therefore the statutory bar created under Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 would come in the way of the State Government passing the order of detention challenged in this case. " We heard Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate on the Criminal Side on the above points. 2. Let us take the last point urged before this court first for consideration. The statutory bar would come into operation only when a person is to be detained as a bootlegger, drug-offender, forest offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or slum-grabber or video pirates. In this case, the detention is on the basis of the subjective satisfaction arrived at to the effect that if the detenu is at large, he is likely to indulge in activities, which in turn would affect the security of the State. Such a ground namely, security of the State being the basis for detention order is not covered under Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Therefore accepting the submission made by Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate on the above lines, the last point stands rejected. We will now take up point No.3 urged before us. The Supreme Court, in the judgment brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in 2001 SCC (Cri) 147 (AMRITLAL v. UNION GOVT.) while deciding as to whether the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is based on material or not, has held as hereunder: - "In Agustin decision this Court also placed strong reliance on an earlier but oft-cited decision of this Court in Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad wherein it was held that if a person is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of his being released therefrom, the power of detention should not ordinarily be exercised. This Court held that there must be cogent materials before the officer passing the detention order that the detenu is 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." In other words the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority must be based on cogent materials. In the case on hand, the detaining authority had the First Information Report registered in Crime No.765 of 2004 on the file of Bunglowpudur Police Station for an offence under Section 394 I.P.C; the arrest and the recoveries made and the order dated 10.12.2004 passed in CMP No.7603 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Gobichettipalayam, negativing bail. In the case on hand, the detaining authority had the First Information Report registered in Crime No.765 of 2004 on the file of Bunglowpudur Police Station for an offence under Section 394 I.P.C; the arrest and the recoveries made and the order dated 10.12.2004 passed in CMP No.7603 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Gobichettipalayam, negativing bail. Therefore it cannot be said that there was no material at all, much less cogent material before the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction of the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. On the above noted materials, the detaining authority proceeded to state as hereunder:- "However there is imminent possibility of his filing further bail application or move the higher courts seeking to release him on bail. I am also aware that in similar cases the accused are released on bail by the same court or the Superior Court after a lapse of some time. And if he comes out on bail he will indulge in such further activities in future as well which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and Security of the State". Reading the above materials available in the grounds of detention as a whole, it is clear to our mind that the detaining authority had definitely arrived at the subjective satisfaction of the detenu coming out on bail. There is no prescribed format for expressing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority of the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The expression would vary from one detaining authority to other detaining authority. Therefore if we read the above extracted material available in the grounds of detention, it is clear to our mind that the detaining authority had arrived at the subjective satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail on relevant and cogent materials. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the grounds of detention in this regard. 3. As far as point No.2 is concerned, it is needless to state that the detaining authority is not conducting a trial. He only looks at the material placed before him in the form of First Information Report under Section 394 I.P.C., the recoveries made and the statement of Matheswaran disclosing certain materials, which in the opinion of the Collector are likely to cause danger to the security of the State. He only looks at the material placed before him in the form of First Information Report under Section 394 I.P.C., the recoveries made and the statement of Matheswaran disclosing certain materials, which in the opinion of the Collector are likely to cause danger to the security of the State. Simply because the police have not registered any crime on the basis of the disclosures made to them by Matheswaran, would not by itself, in our considered opinion, vitiate the order of detention. Registering the crime is not the duty of the detaining authority nor does he have any authority to tell the police to register a crime, while he exercises the power of passing the detention order. What all he is required to do at that stage is to go through the materials brought to his notice and arrive at the subjective satisfaction as to whether any preventive detention is called for or not. He is not conducting any trial. Therefore we have no hesitation at all in holding that the act of the police in not registering the crime on the basis of the disclosures stated to have been made to the police by Madheswaran, would not by itself be a vital ground to vitiate the order of detention. In this context, the learned Government Advocate brings to our notice a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case reported in 1993 Law Weekly (Crl.) 113 (SUBBIAH v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MADRAS CITY). More or less a similar argument was advanced in that case and it was answered in the following manner:- "The next limb of the argument is that there is no registered case with regard to the other offences as against the petitioner. Though it is not necessary for the purpose of this case to consider the said objection, we held that there is no substance in this objection. What is relevant for the purpose of goonda is only commission of offences and not registration of cases. Though it is not necessary for the purpose of this case to consider the said objection, we held that there is no substance in this objection. What is relevant for the purpose of goonda is only commission of offences and not registration of cases. If the materials before the authority prove that the person concerned had habitually committed offences or attempted to commit the same or abetted commission of the same that would be sufficient to show that he is a goonda and the fact that cases were not actually registered against him would not in any way be material." For all the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to accept ground No.2 as a point to vitiate the order of detention. 4. Let us now come to point No.1. 4. Let us now come to point No.1. The disclosures stated to have been made by Madheswaran to the police are summarised as hereunder:- "I overheard the conversation of Abbas alias Oosi Abbas, Abu alias Rabu, Kaja Hussain alias Saji and Yasar; they were conversing that their movement leaders namely, Batshabai, Ansari Bai and others are in prison for the past five years suffering untold misery and such confinement also causes hardship to their family members; they are also not getting justice and therefore as in the past, only if bombs are thrown, the under-trial prisoners can be released from police custody; the following sixth of December is a sad day for us; on that day, we must throw bombs on Central and State Government Properties – Railway Stations, bus stands and bridges; we must throw bombs at Sathi (Sathiamangalam), Erode, Tiruppur and Salem and cause extensive danger to life and damage to property and only then they will have fear in our movement and then release all those in prison; only then they will learn a lesson; areas where money is in wide circulation is known to me (Abbas alias Oosi Abbas); this place would be informed to others and all of them can by joining together steal the money; using the same they can put through their action on the following sixth and thereby create terror in the mind of the public; only then everyone would be frightened about their movement; as to how to go about committing robbery, we will decide in a day or two." We have no hesitation at all in holding that at this stage the detaining authority is not evaluating the above materials to find out as to whether they are true or false. His only duty is to find out whether those materials would subjectively satisfy him the need to pass the detention order. At the risk of repetition we would state that the detaining authority is not conducting any trial. If the materials extracted above is taken into account, it cannot be said that no ground is made out to pass a preventive detention order as done in this case. From the above materials, it cannot also be said that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that the security of the state is at peril has no basis. 5. From the above materials, it cannot also be said that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that the security of the state is at peril has no basis. 5. For all the reasons stated above, we find none of the points deserve merit and accordingly they are rejected and the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.