Judgment :- Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J When the matter was taken up for enquiry, it was brought to the notice of the Courts that H.C.P. No.2328 of 2009 is also connected to H.C.P. Nos.2211 and 2240 of 2009 and all the H.C.Ps. can be taken up together, for which course learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection. Accordingly, a common order is passed as follows:- All these petitions have been brought forth by the detenus themselves against whom an order of detention was passed by the second respondent dated 5.11.2009 in Nos.438/BDFGISSV/2009, 439/BDFGISSV/2009 and 437/2009 respectively, whereby they were ordered to be detained under the Act 14 of 1982, after terming them as "Goonda". 2. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also looked into the materials available on record including the orders under challenge. 3. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring Authority that the petitioners were involved in Crime No.1254 of 2009 in a case of double murder, on scrutiny of the materials available, the detaining Authority, after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioners are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the detention order, after terming them as "Goonda". 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel would urge two points to set aside the detention order. The petitioners have not moved for any bail before any Court of criminal jurisdiction. On the contrary, the detaining Authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, which was actually without any basis or material whatsoever. 5. Learned counsel added further that as could be seen from the First Information Report in Crime No.1254 of 2009 registered by R.3 Ashok Nagar police station for a double murder, the occurrence took place inside the flat house. There was nothing to indicate that there was a panic created by the petitioners and thus, it would not be suffice to invoke the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982. Thus, the observations made by the Detaining Authority that the activities of the petitioners were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was not at all warranted. 6. There was nothing to indicate that there was a panic created by the petitioners and thus, it would not be suffice to invoke the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982. Thus, the observations made by the Detaining Authority that the activities of the petitioners were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was not at all warranted. 6. Learned counsel added further that the detaining Authority has pointed out in its order that the petitioners are habitually committing the double murder, but no case was registered against them in the past. According to the learned counsel, these three grounds would be suffice to vitiate the detention orders. 7. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. It is not in controversy that no adverse case was registered against the petitioners, but only one ground case in Crime No.1254 of 2009 was registered by R.3 Ashok Nagar police station under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in a case of double murder. It is an admitted position that no bail application was filed by the petitioners before the Court of criminal jurisdiction. It is also mentioned by the detaining Authority in the course of the orders under challenge, after recording that the petitioners have not moved for any bail, that there was a real possibility of the petitioners coming out on bail by filing bail applications. Thus, it could be well stated that it was only an impression that was passed in the mind of the Authority, which has no basis or material much less cogent material. Under such circumstances, this ground itself would vitiate the order. 9. Apart from the above, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, as could be seen from the available materials, the occurrence in Crime No.1254 of 2009 has taken place in a flat house within the jurisdiction of R.3 Ashok Nagar police station and it was also a case of double murder. Hence, it would be quite clear that it was not in a public place. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is unable to indicate that any panic that was created by the petitioners in a public place. Hence, it would be quite clear that it was not in a public place. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is unable to indicate that any panic that was created by the petitioners in a public place. But the Detaining Authority has recorded its subjective satisfaction and also observed that the activities of the petitioners were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and now the Court has to lay emphasis on the words "maintenance of public order." Here is a case of double murder and the incident has taken place inside the flat house. Neither it had taken place in a public place nor any panic was created to attract the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982, which cannot form the basis for passing the detention order as done by the Detaining Authority. 10. The added circumstance is that the Detaining Authority has stated that the petitioners are habitually involved in double murder cases. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is unable to point out any one of the case registered against the petitioners in the past. In such circumstances, all these grounds would be suffice to vitiate the detention order. 11. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed, setting aside the detention orders passed by the second respondent dated 5.11.2009 in Nos.438/BDFGISSV/2009, 439/BDFGISSV/2009 and 437/2009 respectively. The detenus, viz., Vijayaraj, Bala @ Baluvan and Velmurugan, who are now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case.