JUDGMENT D. MURUGESAN, J. The detenu himself is the petitioner who has been detained as Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as per the detention order passed by the second respondent in C.M.P. No. 2 of 2008 dated 13.2.2008. 2. The first ground on which the detention order is to be quashed, is that in paragraph No. 12 of the detention order it is stated that though the petitioner has not filed any bail application, the Detaining Authority has formed his opinion that the petitioner may file a bail application and there is real possibility of coming out on bail. There is absolutely no material to support the said awareness of the Detaining Authority and consequential satisfaction as to the detenu filing the bail application and coming out on bail. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. In paragraph No. 5 of the grounds of detention order passed by the Detaining Authority, it is stated as follows: "5. I am aware that the said accused Mani @ Abbas Mani has been remanded to judicial custody by Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Madurai in Avaniapuram P.S. Cr. No. 28 of 2007 under Section 392, I.P.C and is confined in Central Prison, Madurai. I came to know that he had not filed any bail application. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing a bail application for the above case before the same Court or Higher Courts, since in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned Court or Higher Courts after a lapse of time." 5. It is the admitted case that the petitioner though was arrested on 27.1.2008, was remanded till 8.2.2008 and the remand was further extended as he has not filed any bail application. In the absence of any bail application, the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that there is possibility of the detenu filing bail application and himself coming out on bail, is not supported by any material. 6. Our attention is not drawn by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as any of the materials to form such an opinion. In the absence of the same, the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority as to the detenu filing the bail application and coming out on bail, is unsupported by material. 7. 6. Our attention is not drawn by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as any of the materials to form such an opinion. In the absence of the same, the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority as to the detenu filing the bail application and coming out on bail, is unsupported by material. 7. The second ground is that the representation of the petitioner dated 1.5.2008 was received by the Government on 5.5.2008. Though remarks were called for from the Detaining Authority on 6.5.2008, it was received only on 21.5.2008. The proforma furnished before this Court does not give any explanation as to the enormous delay of nearly fifteen days. On this ground also, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention C.M.P. No. 2 of 2008 dated 13.2.2008, is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his custody is required, otherwise in accordance with law. Petition allowed.