Judgment :- S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. The mother of the detenu has filed this petition against the detention order passed by the second respondent in Detention Order No.1/2009 dated 2. 2009, whereby the detenu Illangovan has been branded as Goonda and detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. The main plea taken by the petitioner, is that there was no application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the words and expressions "imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail" or "likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail" or "release on bail was likely" or "release on bail in the immediate future" or "release on bail at the earliest" indicating that the release would likely to happen very soon, have not been mentioned. 3. Reliance was placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in K.Thirupathi V. District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruchirapalli, and another (2005 MLJ (CRL.) 1101) and the Division Bench decision in A.Thirumavalavan V. The Government of Tamil Nadu and two others (2006-1-L.W. (CRL.) 31). 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. The question whether the usage of the word "imminent" is necessary or the other convincing expressions can be used by the detaining authority fell for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of K.Thirupathi (supra) 2005 MLJ (CRL.) 1101. In the said case, the Full Bench has observed as follows: "27. In the case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him: (a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail, and (b) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If the authority passes an order after recording its satisfaction in this behalf, such an order cannot be struck down on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition to question it before a higher Court. 28. If the authority passes an order after recording its satisfaction in this behalf, such an order cannot be struck down on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition to question it before a higher Court. 28. It is neither possible nor advisable to catalogue the types of materials which can form the basis of a detention order under the Act. That will depend on the facts and situation of a case. That is why there is no provision in the Act in that regard and the matter is left to the discretion of the detaining authority. However, the facts stated in the materials relied upon should be true and should have a reasonable nexus with the purpose for which the order is passed. 29. In view of the above, we hold that strict insistence of the usage of the word "imminent" is not necessary and the other convincing expressions like "real possibility", "very likely", or "most likely" can be used by the detaining authority to reflect its satisfaction with regard to immediate release of the detenu on bail. We answer the reference accordingly." 6. From the aforesaid Full Bench decision, it would be evident that the Court while leaving it open to catalogue the types of the materials which can form the basis of the detention order under the Act, has observed that the strict insistence of the usage of the word "imminent" is not necessary. That means the words "imminent" or "real possibility" or "very likely" or "most likely to be released on bail" or any other appropriate sentence can be used. 7. There is no particular charm in the expressions "imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail" or "likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail" or "release on bail was likely" or "release on bail at the earliest". It is the detaining authority who can choose any of the aforesaid expressions or any other expressions indicating that the release of the detenu would likely to happen very soon. It is the detaining authority who can choose any of the aforesaid expressions or any other expressions indicating that the release of the detenu would likely to happen very soon. So far as the case of Mr.A.Thirumavalavan reported in 2006-1-L.W. (CRL.) 31, is concerned, that was the case in which the detaining authority had not reflected its application of mind; but, it was only expressed that there was possibility of moving a bail and coming out on bail by filing bail application in the Court. In that case, subjective satisfaction was not made that there was imminent possibility or likelihood of the release of the detenu which may be detrimental to the society. So far as the present case is concerned, the detaining authority having noticed the records and facts has stated that he was aware that the detenu is in remand in connection with Allinagaram Police Station Cr.No.62/2009 and his remand was extended by the Court up to 12. 2009. The detaining authority has observed that if the detenu comes out after the date, he will indulge in future activities. That means the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and detrimental to the society. How the detenu will come out after the extension date has not been mentioned since it cannot be forecasted as to whether in future the Court will extend the remand and the detenu may file a petition for bail and may be released. Therefore, the mode and the manner in which the detenu may be released from custody in future if not known, it is always open to the detaining authority to come to a definite conclusion as to whether the detenu will indulge in similar activities in future if he comes out of the jail. In view of such specific observation made in the present case, we are not inclined to accept the suggestion that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while passing the order of detention. In the absence of any merit, we have no option but to dismiss the case. 8. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.