Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The order of detention on the allegation that the detenu is a `Bootlegger is in question. 3. The detaining authority in paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention has observed as follows: "5.I am aware that Thiru.Balasundaram is in remand in Arcot Taluk Police Station Crime No.275/2006 u/s 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A)(ii) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w 328 IPC and he has moved the bail application in Crl.M.P.No.9342/2006 before the Sessions Court, Vellore and the same was dismissed on 11. 2006. Further I am also aware that a bail application was moved before the Honble High Court, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.29332/2006 and is pending. However there is most likely that he may come out on bail for the above case, since in similar cases, bails are granted by the High Court after lapse of time." 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the bail application of the accused/detenu was rejected by the High Court on 211. 2006 and yet the aforesaid aspect was never brought to the notice of the detaining authority. It is therefore contended that the detaining authority mechanically passed the order without proper satisfaction regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out of bail by taking into account the relevant facts, particularly, the fact that the bail application of the accused/detenu had been rejected by the High Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered in KUPPUSWAMY, C v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (2005 M.L.J.(Crl.)891). The ratio of the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case. 5. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. 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.