Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. In all these petitions, challenge is made to the respective orders of detention made by the second respondent dated 8.11.2008, terming the detenus as Goonda. 2. In all these cases, the detenus are the petitioners. The orders are challenged on the following grounds: (a) The confessional statement in the ground case was recorded as if it was done by one of the petitioners namely Arumuganainar, who are all shown as accused in the ground case. The confessional statement of Arumuganainar was recorded, and the same if perused, would indicate that in first part, it is stated that it was Arumuganainar while in the other pages it is stated that it was by a different accused. (b) Equally, there was a recovery of vehicle bearing registration No. TN 69 A 8270, a motorcycle, which was alleged to have been recovered from Arumuganainar; but, the athatchi would reveal that it was recovered from one Muthukumar, the petitioner in HCP 42/2009. Thus these discrepancies were noticed. If to be so, a clarification should have been called for by the detaining authority, but failed to do so. (c) As far as bail applications were concerned, there were two adverse cases and one ground case out of which the bail application was filed in the first adverse case on 24.10.2008 and dismissed on 5.11.2008. As far as the second adverse case and ground case are concerned, no bail application was filed either, or pending before the Court of criminal law. When the order came to be passed on 8.11.2008, the authority has observed as if there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, and it was actually not supported by any material. Thus it was only an apprehension and without any reason. (d) As regards the other accused one Minor Murugan, he was shown to be the person who has actually supplied weapons and country bombs, etc. But he was out of India from 11.10.2008 and 30.10.2008. The occurrence has taken place between these periods, and he has also moved for anticipatory bail before the Apex Court, and the police was directed not to arrest him. All would go to show that it was actually a cooked up case for the purpose of detaining them, and under the circumstances, they have got to be released by setting aside the orders. 3. All would go to show that it was actually a cooked up case for the purpose of detaining them, and under the circumstances, they have got to be released by setting aside the orders. 3. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions. 4. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the petitioners herein were involved in two adverse cases namely (1) Seevalaperi PS Cr. No. 85/2008 under Sec. 302 IPC; and (2) Ayikudi PS Cr. No. 135/2008 under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC, and one ground case in Thevarkulam PS Cr. No. 73/2008 under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC and Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, on scrutiny of the materials, the second respondent had passed the order of detention on 8.11.2008 recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioners were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, a scrutiny of the materials would clearly indicate the following infirmities. 5. Perusal of the materials would clearly indicate that there was a confessional statement of Arumuganainar. The first part of the confession would indicate as if it was recorded from Arumuganainar. When the other pages are looked into, it would indicate as if it was done by other accused. Thus, a discrepancy is noticed whether it is from Arumuganainar or from the other accused. 6. Apart from the above, a recovery has actually been made as per the athatchi from one Muthukumar who is the co-accused in the case. But a perusal of the materials would clearly indicate that though it was recovered from Muthukumar, in the confession of Arumuganainar it is shown as if it was recovered from him. But the statements of the other two accused Muthukumar and Mayandi are not found in the entire materials, and thus a clarification was required which should have been asked for, but not done so. Under the circumstances, the order suffers. 7. Equally, there were two adverse cases and one ground case. There was a bail application filed in the first adverse case on 24.10.2008, and the same was dismissed on 5.11.2008. As far as the second adverse case and ground case are concerned, admittedly bail applications were not filed. Under the circumstances, the order suffers. 7. Equally, there were two adverse cases and one ground case. There was a bail application filed in the first adverse case on 24.10.2008, and the same was dismissed on 5.11.2008. As far as the second adverse case and ground case are concerned, admittedly bail applications were not filed. It is pertinent to point out that even the dismissal order was passed only in the first adverse case on 5.11.2008. It remains to be stated that when the order under challenge came to be passed on 8.11.2008, within a short span of 3 days and that too while no bail application was pending in the other two cases, the observation made by the authority that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail was not only without any basis, but also an apprehension in the mind of the authority. It can even be commented as unwarranted. Under the circumstances, the order has got to be set aside. 8. As far as the other ground is concerned, a perusal of the Apex Court's order would indicate that it was only an interim order at that time. In respect of the present petitioners, in the considered opinion of the Court, that cannot be a ground to set aside the impugned order. However on the grounds mentioned above, the order suffers. 9. Accordingly, these habeas corpus petitions are allowed setting aside the orders of the second respondent. The detenus are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case.