Judgment : (The order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 04.12.2009 whereby the detenu was ordered to be detained under Act 14 of 1982 branding him as a Goonda as defined under the provisions of the Act. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side and looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge. 3. Admittedly pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the said detenu was involved in two adverse cases namely (1) registered by Fort Police Station in Crime No.143 of 2009 under Sections 341, 323 IPC and (2) registered by Fort Police Station in Crime No.1348 of 2009 under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(ii) r/w 399 IPC and also another case shown as ground case in Crime No.1883 of 2009 registered Fort Police Station under Sections 392 r/w 397 of the Indian Penal Code, on scrutiny of the materials, the detaining authority after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and has made the order under challenge after branding him as Goonda. 4. The only contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a bail application was filed in Crl.M.P.No.3219 of 2000 and the same was pending on the file of the Principle Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. While the matter stood thus, the detaining authority has observed in its order that he drew inference that he is very likely to be released on bail in Cr.No.1883 of 2009 and this was actually without any basis whatsoever. Hence, the order has got to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the detenu was actually involved in Crime No.1348 of 2009 of the same police station and he moved for bail and the same has been granted. Under such circumstances, the detaining authority has drew the inference correctly that he is very likely to be released on bail and passed the detention order. 6. The court is unable to agree with the learned counsel for the State. In the instant case, both the cases were registered against the detenu by the Fort Police Station in Crime Nos.1348 of 2009 and 1883 of 2009. 6. The court is unable to agree with the learned counsel for the State. In the instant case, both the cases were registered against the detenu by the Fort Police Station in Crime Nos.1348 of 2009 and 1883 of 2009. It is true that in so far as the present case is concerned, application was pending before the same Court in Crl.M.P.No.3219 of 2009 referred to above. Merely because a bail application was ordered in the other case, it cannot be taken as that it shall authorize in the next case. Each case has got to be decided on the factual matrix and the merits of the matter and hence inference which was drawn by the detaining authority that he is very likely to be released on bail was without any basis or material much less cogent material. This would suffice to set aside the detention order. 8. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the second respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.