Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. This Writ Application challenges the order of the second respondent made in Cr.M.P.No.38/2008 dated 05.9.2008 whereby the petitioner's friend was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a “Bootlegger”. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge. 3. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in four adverse cases viz., Crime No.546/2007 under Sections 4(1)(aa) TNP Act 1937 registered by Tiruchirapalli-Kallakudi Police Station; Crime No.38/2008 under Sections 4(1)(aa)(Tr)TNP Act, 1937 registered by Tiruchirappalli-Kallakudi Police Station; Crime No.168/2008 under Sections 4(1)(aa) TNP Act, 1937; Crime No.1039/2008 under sections 4(1)(a) r/w 4 (1-A)TNP Act, 1937 and in one ground case in Crime No.289/2008 under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937 registered by Kallakudi Police Station, the detaining authority recorded his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health and that he should be detained as a “Bootlegger” and accordingly, made the order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Assailing the order of detention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner rested his case only on one prime ground. According to him, the detenu was arrested in connection with the Crime No.289/2008 dated 11.8.2008 for the incident that took place on 11.8.2008 when he was found in possession of 110 litres of country arrack with hard odour and irritation and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi on the same day, and he was sent for judicial remand. He moved a bail application in the ground case in Crime No.289/2008 in Cr.M.P.No.3481 of 2008 before the Court of Sessions, Tiruchirappalli and the same was dismissed on 26.8.2008. Thereafter, he moved this Court and the bail was granted on 2.9.2008 in Crl.O.P.No.862 of 2008. When the materials were placed before the detaining authority, this material pertaining to grant of bail was not placed before him. Thereafter, he moved this Court and the bail was granted on 2.9.2008 in Crl.O.P.No.862 of 2008. When the materials were placed before the detaining authority, this material pertaining to grant of bail was not placed before him. On the contrary, it is found in the detention order that the bail application filed in the ground case in Crime No.289/2008 in Cr.M.P.No.3481 of 2008 before the Court of Sessions, Tiruchirappalli was dismissed on 26.8.2008. Thus, all the materials which were available in the hands of the sponsoring authority were never placed before the detaining authority. Consequently, the detaining authority was unable to take a correct decision. Hence, the detaining authority has stated in its order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Thus, it has caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu and hence, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. The detenu moved bail application in the ground case in Crime No.289/2008 in Cr.M.P.No.3481 of 2008 before the Court of Sessions, Tiruchirappalli and the same was dismissed on 26.8.2008. But the fact remains that he moved this Court and bail was granted on 2.9.2008 in Crl.O.P.No.862 of 2008 and that all the materials pertaining to grant of bail was not placed before the detaining authority before passing the order of detention. Thus, it would be quite clear that the sponsoring authority did not enable the detaining authority to appraise the situation properly. Since it is against the interest of the detenu, this ground would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention. 7. Accordingly, the 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. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.