Judgment :- P. MURGESEN, J Challenging the order of the detention, the mother of the detenu has filed the petition. The detenu was detained by the second respondent Commissioner of Police by his detention order No.05/NSA/2008 dated 211. 2008, under Section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act 65/1980) read with the order issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1170/Public (Law and Order - F) Department, dated 10. 2008 under Sub Section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged and stressed five grounds in support of his stand to show that the detention order is vitiated. According to him there is no disturbance to public order. So, the stand of the detaining authority that the detenu has to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future is not correct. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Dipak Rose v. State of W.B. reported in (1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases 43 and in Angoori Devi v. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 371 and argued that there is no disturbance to public order. 3. In Dipak Rose v. State of W.B. reported in (1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases 43 the charge was that the petitioner kidnapped one Kashinath Saha of West Putiary, P.S. Behala and killed him at K.M.Naskar Road, P.S.Jadavpur and there by created panic and terror in the locality. The Honourable Supreme Court was of the view that two individuals who were the victims of the alleged two assaults, and therefore, do not appear to be relevant grounds affecting the maintenance of public order for which only the power of detention under the Act is intended to be used. In that case it was further observed by the Honourable Apex Court that every assault in a public place like a public road and terminating in the death of a victim is likely to cause horror and even panic and terror in those who are the spectators. But that does not mean that all of such incidents do necessarily cause disturbance or dislocation of the community life of the localities in which they are committed. But that does not mean that all of such incidents do necessarily cause disturbance or dislocation of the community life of the localities in which they are committed. There is nothing in the two incidents set out in the grounds in the present case to suggest that either of them was of that kind and gravity which would jeopardise the maintenance of public order. So, since there was no disturbance to public order the detention order was set aside. 4. In Angoori Devi v. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 371 the offence has been set to be committed under Section 392 r/w 34. So, the Honourable Supreme Court was of the view that there is no disturbance to public order. Further, the Honourable Apex Court has held that the impact on "public order" and "law and order" depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and motive force behind it. If the act is confined to an individual without directly or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the community, it may be a matter of law and order only. But where the gravity of the act is otherwise and likely to endanger the public tranquillity, it may fall within the orbit of the public order. 5. So far as this case is concerned, learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that it is case of communal class between two groups. One Chellappa was murdered due to property dispute and the detention order would show that the accused and the Chellappa belonged to different communities. As a result of the murder of Chellappa, even the tempo of the life of general public was disrupted at Bharathiyar Street, Tirunelveli Town and surrounding areas. Further the maintenance of public order was disturbed in the whole area. People inhabiting at Bharathiyar street stayed inside their homes fearing danger to their lives. Tense situation prevailed between the particular two caste people in Tirunelveli Town. 6. Nodoubt, Tirunelveli Town is a tense place and any incident relating to caste will lead to disturbance of the public order. Hence, considering the present case, the conclusion of the detaining authority that he has to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future is correct. Nodoubt, Tirunelveli Town is a tense place and any incident relating to caste will lead to disturbance of the public order. Hence, considering the present case, the conclusion of the detaining authority that he has to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future is correct. So, the above ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not helpful to him. So the substantive satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is correct. 7. Another ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority was of the view that there is possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It is settled law that there must be some material to hold that there is possibility of the detenu coming on bail. 8. In the detention order the detaining authority has averred that "I am aware that Thiru. Nellikkai Mani alias Mani is now at Central Prison, Palayamkottai as remand prisoner and that he has filed a bail application before the District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in Crl.M.P.no.4390/2008 on 211. 2008 in connection with the case in Tirunelveli Town Police Station Crime No.954 of 2008 and the same was dismissed on 211. 2008. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application before the same or higher court in connection with the above case, since in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned court or higher court." In this case bail application was dismissed on 211. 2008 and the detention order was passed on 211. 2008. So, on the next day of the dismissal of the bail application, the detention order was clamped on the detenu on the ground that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. There must be satisfactory and acceptable materials on record to enable to detaining authority to arrive at the conclusion that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing another bail application. We perused the materials carefully and meticulously and the respondent is unable to say any ground or material to show that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is based on any material. Absolutely, there is no material to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. We perused the materials carefully and meticulously and the respondent is unable to say any ground or material to show that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is based on any material. Absolutely, there is no material to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. So, the subjective satisfaction arrived on the next day of the date of dismissal of the bail application is not correct. Hence, the order of detention is liable to be set aside on this ground. 9. Another ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is violation of Section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980. Section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980 reads as follows: "3(5) When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this section, the State Government shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order." Relying on this, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the State Government did not report the fact to the Central Government within seven days from the date of approval. According to him, the detention order was passed on 211. 2008 but the State Government did not sent the same to the Central Government within seven days. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Honourable Court in K.K.Sheik Mohideen v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1375. 10. The claim of the counsel for the petitioner is reputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor by pointing out that the detention order was approved on 012. 2008 and it was received by the Central Government on 112. 2008. So, the State Government send a report to the Central Government within seven days from the date of approval. So, this ground is not helpful to the petitioner. 11. Another ground raised on the side of the petitioner is that the F.I.R. in Crime No.954 of 2008 was registered on 110. 2008, but in page No.13 of the booklet filed by the respondents reveals that the F.I.R. was registered on 210. 2008, which creates confusion in the mind of the detenue. 11. Another ground raised on the side of the petitioner is that the F.I.R. in Crime No.954 of 2008 was registered on 110. 2008, but in page No.13 of the booklet filed by the respondents reveals that the F.I.R. was registered on 210. 2008, which creates confusion in the mind of the detenue. We perused the copy of the F.I.R., wherein it is stated that the F.I.R. was registered on 110. 2008. But in page No.13, in the penultimate paragraph of the F.I.R., it is stated that F.I.R. is dated 210. 2008. So, the material supplied to the accused would create doubt in his mind. There is no satisfactory explanation on this aspect from the respondents. Hence, the detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground also. 12. The last ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused surrendered before the 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai on 110. 2008 as per the endorsement made in the Surrender Petition in page No.115 of the booklet and the learned Magistrate directed to produce the detenu on 20.10.2008 before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli. But the Remand Extension Report in page No.133 of the booklet reveals that the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli only on 210. 2008. Hence, on 210. 2008, the detenu was in custody without any legal sanction and the same was not explained in the ground of detention and which was not explained in the ground of detention and which was not considered by the detaining authority while arriving the subjective satisfaction. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mahalakshmi v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 1634, wherein this Court has held that any variation in the date of occurrence and preparation of observation mahazar and seizure mahazar is likely to cause confusion in the mind of the detenu, such mistake cannot be termed as trivial typographical error. 13. In this case also, in the copy of the surrender petition furnished to the petitioner there is a request to produce the detenu before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli on 20.10.2008, but the accused was produced before the Magistrate only on 210. 2008. It would cause confusion in the mind of the detenu. 13. In this case also, in the copy of the surrender petition furnished to the petitioner there is a request to produce the detenu before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli on 20.10.2008, but the accused was produced before the Magistrate only on 210. 2008. It would cause confusion in the mind of the detenu. There is no satisfactory explanation on the side of the respondent. Hence, on the grounds Nos.2, 4 and 5 the detention order is liable to set aside. 14. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.05/NSA/2008 dated 211. 2008, passed by the second respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.