Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. The petitioner, wife of the detenu, Asaithambi, who was detained as "Goonda" under section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the impugned proceedings dated 3. 2008, challenges the same in this habeas corpus petition. 2. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/detenu is that the detaining authority, in ground No.4 of the detention order has stated that "I am aware that Thiru Vijayamani @ Manikandan is in remand in F.3 Nugambakkam Police Station Crime Nos.56/2008, 71/2008, 79/2008, 80/2008 and 86/2008 and he(detenu) has not moved any bail petition so far. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application before the same court or higher courts since in similar cases bails are granted by the same court or higher courts after a lapse of time". Referring to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above statement of the detaining authority cannot be considered to be the subjective satisfaction, as to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, while passing the detention order. 3. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the detaining authority has to satisfy himself based on the materials placed on record. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the Division Bench judgment of this court reported in (2002) 2 L.W.(Cri) 765, wherein the Division Bench followed another Division Bench judgment in H.C.P.No.691/2001, wherein it was held that "likelihood to be released on bail" is different from "likelihood of the detenu moving an application for bail". The said judgment followed the decision rendered in HCP.No:11 of 2001 and came to the conclusion that the detention order suffers from non application of mind and set aside the order of detention. 4. From the above judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the "imminent possibility of filing of the bail application" cannot be considered as the "imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail". 4. From the above judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the "imminent possibility of filing of the bail application" cannot be considered as the "imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail". But, in the instant case, the detaining authority has not stated that "there is an imminent possibility of the detenu filing bail application or moving higher court..." and therefore, the above said decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 5. Further, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the statement of the detaining authority that there is real possibility of the detenue coming out on bail by filing bail application cannot be held to be non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ibrahim Nazeer Vs. State of T.N.and another, reported in (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 17, wherein, while answering to a similar contention raised therein, it has been held by Their Lordship as under:- "5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant that the only plea raised was that the High Court was not justified in holding that the detaining authoritys view about imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail was correct. It was also submitted that since the detenu had not filed any bail application after withdrawal of the first petition, the detaining authority could not have inferred that there was possibility of his being released on bail".... xx xx xx xx xx 6. It is to be noted that whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on the 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 an ipse dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before it, 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 basis of materials before it, 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 the case, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases, orders granting bail are passed by various courts. The appellant has not disputed the correctness of this statement. 7. Applying the above principle, it could be seen that in the case on hand, the detaining authority had satisfied himself about the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application before the same court or higher courts, since in similar cases bails are granted by the same court or higher courts after a lapse of time, based on the materials placed before him. The detaining authority further proceeded to state that he was fully satisfied that the detenu is also a goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 8. On going through the materials placed on record and also the grounds of detention order, we are of the view that the detaining authority has rightly arrived at the subjective satisfaction to hold that the detenu is a goonda and also the reasoning as to the real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application before the same court or higher courts. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot dispute that in similar cases bails are granted by the same court or higher courts after a lapse of time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner fails and the HCP is liable to be dismissed. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.