Judgment D. Murugesan, J. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Alagar, who has been branded as 'Goonda' and detained under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the first respondent in his order dated 7.3.2008. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner questions the detention order on the ground that the detaining authority has not properly applied his mind as to the detenu filing a bail application and the real possibility of himself coming out on bail. Hence the detention order is vitiated. 3. Weheard Mr.S.P.Samuel Raj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 4. The detenu has three adverse cases apart from the ground case to his credit on the date when the detention order was passed. As the said detention order is questioned on the ground that there was no material available before the detaining authority to arrive at the conclusion that the detenu may file a bail application and come out on bail, we would like to refer to the facts relating to the two adverse cases as well as the ground case. The first adverse case relates to Krishnankovil Police Station Crime No.332 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 342, 364(A), 397 IPC r/w 25(1)(b) Arms Act and 147, 148, 341, 342, 364(A), 394 IPC and Sec.3 r/w 25(1)(B)(a) Arms Act, 1959. The said case came to be registered on the basis of the complaint given by one Thiru. Sheik Musthan S/o Shahul Hameed, Pallivasal Street, Periakulam, Theni District alleging that on 29.11.2006 at about 10.00 a.m., he along with his friend Thiru Kumar and car driver Thiru Saravanan were proceeding to Courtalam in a Tavera car bearing registration number TN 39 Y 3339 from his native place, near VPM Women College at Krishnankovil in Madurai-Rajapalayam NH Road, at about 2.45 p.m., a Tata sumo car bearing registration number TN 04 F 9572 came behind, crossed and stopped the complainant's car. Thiru Alagar, the detenu and his associates got down from the Tata sumo car with deadly weapons and the detenu was armed with country made fire arm and his associates Thiru.Prem was armed with suri knife and Thiruvalargal.Ansari, Madasamy and Perumal were armed with aruvals. Thiru Alagar, the detenu and his associates got down from the Tata sumo car with deadly weapons and the detenu was armed with country made fire arm and his associates Thiru.Prem was armed with suri knife and Thiruvalargal.Ansari, Madasamy and Perumal were armed with aruvals. They came and opened the complainant's car and when the complainant attempted to escape from the car, Thiru Ansari cut his left hand with aruval and pushed him inside the car. The other associate Prem attempted to stab Thiru Kumar with a knife, but he escaped unhurt. Subsequently the detenu and his associates got into the car and threatened the complainant's group with weapons and took them to a forest area near Devathanam village and kept them throughout the night and intimidated them for money. Then on 30.11.2006 they kidnapped them to Puliyangudi and wrongfully confined the complaint, Thiru Kumar and driver Thiru Saravanan at a lodge. The detenu and his associates robbed 14 ¾ sovereigns of gold jewels worth Rs.88, 000/-from the complainant and also threatened and demanded Rs.5, 00, 000/- for their release. The complainant contacted his brother Sirajutheen over phone and arranged the money and handed over Rs.4, 50, 000/- to the detenu and his associates on 30.11.2006 night. Afterwards they were released with the Tavera car. The associates of the detenu were arrested on 4.12.2006 and a cash of Rs.2, 15, 000/- was recovered from them. The detenu moved anticipatory bail in the High Court Bench at Madurai in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1408 of 2007 and it was dismissed on 23.3.2007. The detenu was arrested on 5.2.2008 and 9 ¼ sovereigns of gold ornaments were seized from him. The charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Srivilliputhur on 4.3.2008. He has not moved bail application in this case. 5. The second adverse case relates to Rajapalayam North Police Station Crime No.88 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 397 and 506(ii) IPC. The charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Srivilliputhur on 4.3.2008. He has not moved bail application in this case. 5. The second adverse case relates to Rajapalayam North Police Station Crime No.88 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 397 and 506(ii) IPC. The gist of the said case is that on 31.1.2008 at 12.30 hours, the detenu came to the old iron shop of Thiru Yogeswaran, Councillor located at Kamarajar Nagar in Rajapalayam in an Omni Van bearing Registration number TN 01 M 0048 and robbed the cash of Rs.1, 000/- from the shirt pocket of one Meenachisundaram S/o Paulraj Pillai who came there accidentally by putting a soori knife on his chest and threatened him of murder and escaped in the same Omni van. He was arrested on 5.2.08 in connection with Crime No.332/06 and 18/08 of Krishnankovil Police Station and during interrogation he gave confession statement stating that he has committed the offence in this case besides the two cases of Krishnankovil Police Station. The Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam issued Pending Trial warrant against him on 20.02.2008 and sent to Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. The charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam on 29.2.2008. He has not moved bail application in this case. 6. The ground case has been registered by Krishnankovil Police Station in Crime No.18 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC on the basis of the complaint given by one Ganesan stating that at about 19.30 hours on 3.2.2008, while he was standing in front of his tea shop near Sundarapandiam bus stop, the detenu came there and threatened the complainant with aruval to part with the cash he was having and when the complainant questioned as to why he should give the cash, the detenu took Rs.500/- from the shirt pocket of the complainant by saying that “he was the son of Nalachakravarthi and nicknamed as Rajapalayam Alagar and the entire city will fear for him.” When the complainant demanded to return the money, the detenu attempted to cut the complainant with aruval by saying “from whom he is demanding the money”, but the complainant escaped unhurt. The shopkeepers nearby shut down their shops and the public ran helter-skelter. The detenu also ran towards southern side and escaped. The shopkeepers nearby shut down their shops and the public ran helter-skelter. The detenu also ran towards southern side and escaped. On the basis of the complaint given by the complainant, the ground case in Crime No.18 of 2008 came to be registered. 7. The satisfaction of the detaining authority as to the possibility of the detenu filing a bail application and coming out on bail came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the judgment in Senthamilselvi v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (2006) 3 SCC (Crl.) 50 and in paragraph-10 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- “It was also submitted that since the detenu had not filed any bail application, the detaining authority could not have inferred that there was possibility of his being released on bail. Strong reliance is placed on several decisions of this Court. it has to be noted that whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule can be applied. The only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse dixit of the detaning authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of this case, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases orders granting bail are passed by various courts.” 8. The awareness of the detaining authority as to the detenu filing a bail application and the real possibility of coming out on bail, basically, has got two limbs. Firstly, the detaining authority must be aware of the fact that the detenu was in remand on the date when the detention order was passed. Secondly, the detaining authority should satisfy himself that there is a real possibility of the detenu filing a bail application and there is a real possibility of getting bail, as in similar cases the Courts are granting bail. Secondly, the detaining authority should satisfy himself that there is a real possibility of the detenu filing a bail application and there is a real possibility of getting bail, as in similar cases the Courts are granting bail. Insofar as the awareness of the detaining authority as to the remand of the detenu in this case, the materials relating to the first remand of the detenu from 5.2.2008 to 19.2.2008 and thereafter the extension of remand from 19.2.2008 to 4.3.2008 and 4.3.2008 to 18.3.2008, the sponsoring authority had placed the remand order and the extension of remand orders before the detaining authority and on consideration of the remand order and the extension of remand orders, the detaining authority became aware of the fact that the detenu was in remand. To this extent, the detention order requires no interference. 9. This takes us to the next limb in regard to the satisfaction of the detaining authority as to the possibility of the detenu filing a bail application and coming out on bail. Even in respect of the second limb of the above, the detaining authority is obligated to have sufficient materials on two aspects. Firstly, he should have the materials relating to the possibility of the detenu filing a bail application and secondly, he should also have the materials to form his opinion that in the event such bail application is filed, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Insofar as the second limb as to the possibility of coming out on bail, the detaining authority has stated that he was aware that there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application before the concerned court or higher court, since in similar cases bails are granted. The satisfaction or awareness of the detaining authority as to the possibility of coming out on bail can be accepted in the event he refers to the fact that courts are granting bail. Therefore, on this score also, the detention order requires no interference. (emphasis supplied) 10. However, so far as the awareness of the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of the detenu filing a bail application is concerned, there must be some material and in the absence of any material, the detention order is vitiated. Therefore, on this score also, the detention order requires no interference. (emphasis supplied) 10. However, so far as the awareness of the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of the detenu filing a bail application is concerned, there must be some material and in the absence of any material, the detention order is vitiated. In order to find out the satisfaction, this Court cannot apply a hard-and-fast rule, as it depends upon the facts of each case. On the facts of this case, it has come to light that the detenu was arrested on 5.2.2008 in the first adverse case also in Krishnankovil Police Station Crime No.332 of 2006, which case relates to not only for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, but also under the Arms Act, and factually the detenu has not moved any bail application as could be seen from the very grounds of detention. Similarly, in the second adverse case in Rajapalayam North Police Station Crime No.88 of 2008 also, he was arrested on 5.2.2008 and was remanded and even in that case, he has not moved any bail application as could be seen from the grounds of detention. In the ground case also in Krishnankovil Police Station Crime No.18 of 2008, he has not moved any bail application. 11. On the above factual background, the awareness and the consequential satisfaction of the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of the detenu filing a bail application are totally unsupported by materials. This satisfaction of the detaining authority suffers from two infirmities. Firstly, there are no materials and secondly, he has not even adverted to the fact that even in both the adverse cases, out of which the first adverse case is in respect of not only the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code but also under the Arms Act, the detenu has been arrested and remanded and the said fact has not been adverted to before arriving at the satisfaction that there is a possibility of filing a bail application and coming out on bail. 12. For theabove reasons, the awareness of the detaining authority as to the filing of bail application cannot be sustained for passing the detention order. On the said ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 12. For theabove reasons, the awareness of the detaining authority as to the filing of bail application cannot be sustained for passing the detention order. On the said ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 7.3.2008 passed by the first respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.