M.Karpagavinayagam, J.: The detention order dated 22.7.2004 branding the detenu as a ‘Goonda’ is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition filed by the brother of the detenu. 2. The short point which has been raised before this Court is that the vital materials relating to the order passed by the Sessions Court in the bail applications filed by the detenu in respect of both the adverse case and the ground case have not been placed before the detaining authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction with regard to imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail. 3. It is stated in para.4 of the grounds of detention that “there is imminent possibility that he (detenu) may come out on bail for the offences under Secs.307, 324, 336, 341, 385, 427 and 506(2), , I.P.C., by filing bail application in the Court.” A reading of the grounds of detention would indicate that the detenu would file application for bail in future and in those circumstances, the detaining authority felt that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail and as such there is a compelling necessity to pass an order. But, factually, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detenu has filed two bail applications for both adverse case and ground case and the same were dismissed on 16.7.2004, but the detaining authority has not chosen to refer to the fact in the grounds of detention that bail applications of the detenu were dismissed on 16.7.2004. This would clearly indicate that the sponsoring authority, even though opposed the bail applications of the detenu and got the dismissal order on 16.7.2004, has not placed the particulars about the dismissal orders of bail applications before the detaining authority. If those materials were placed before the detaining authority, he would have considered them also and arrived at subjective satisfaction with regard to the compelling necessity to pass order by considering the fact that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail. Admittedly, those materials have not been placed before the detaining authority. 4. If those materials were placed before the detaining authority, he would have considered them also and arrived at subjective satisfaction with regard to the compelling necessity to pass order by considering the fact that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail. Admittedly, those materials have not been placed before the detaining authority. 4. A representation has been sent on behalf of the detenu specifically requesting for the supply of copies of the bail applications and the dismissal orders stating that the bail applications were filed by the detenu in Crl.M.P.No.6545 of 2004 with regard to Crime No.740 of 2004 and in Crl.M.P.No.6546 of 2004 with regard to Crime No.752 of 2004 and the same were dismissed on 16.7.2004. But, the detaining authority, on the basis of the report submitted by the sponsoring authority along with the remarks, would state that no bail application was filed on the date of order of detention. 5. On the face of it, we are of the view that the detention order would suffer from infirmity for the reason that the vital materials, viz., bail applications of the detenu and the dismissal orders dated 16.7.2004 have not been placed before the detaining authority while the report has been submitted by the sponsoring authority on 22.7.2004. Under those circumstances, non-placing of the vital materials before the detainning authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction, in our view, would vitiate the detention order. 6. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. Connected H.C.M.P.No.43 of 2005 is closed.