Judgment : Per P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J. The wife of the detenu has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the order of detention passed by the second respondent in Memo No. BDFGISSV.50 of 2009, dated 16.7.2009 directing the detention of her husband, namely Thiyagu @ Paul Thiyagu. 2. The second respondent passed the impugned order of detention in his proceedings BDFGISSV.50 of 2009 dated 16.7.2009 noticing as many as seventeen adverse cases and a ground case. The adverse cases are: 1) Cr.No. 317 of 2008 on the file of T-2, Ambattur Estate police station, 2) Cr.No. 136 of 2009 on the file of T-3, Korattur police station, 3) Cr. No. 167of 2009 on the file of T-3, Korattur police station, 4) Cr. No. 179 of 2009 on the file of T-1, Ambattur Police Station, 5) Cr. No. 312 of 2009 on the file of T-1, Ambattur police station, 6) Cr. No. 417 of 2009 on the file of T-3, Korattur police station, 7) Cr. No. 480 of 2009, T-4, Maduravoyal police station, 8) Cr. No. 334 of 2009 on the file of T-9, Pattabiram police station, 9) Cr. No. 329 of 2009 on the file of M-1, Madhavaram police station, 10) Cr. No. 280 of 2009 on the file of T-15, SRMC police station, 11) Cr. No. 493 of 2009 on the file of T-4, Maduravoyal police station, 12) Cr. No. 283 of 2003 on the file of T-2, Ambattur Estate police station, 13) Cr. No. 241 of 2009 on the file of M-2, Madhavaram Milk Colony police station, 14) Cr. No. 242 of 2009 on the file M-2, Madhavaram Milk Colony police station, 15) Cr. No. 241 of 2009 on the file of K-5, Peravallur police station (the adverse cases 1 to 15 were registered for alleged offences punishable under Section 379 IPC), 16) Cr. No. 381 of 2009 on the file of M-1, Madhvaram police station and 17) Cr. No. 246 of 2009 on the file of M-2, Madhavaram Milk Colony police station (both 16th and 17th adverse cases were registered for offences punishable under Section 392 IPC). The (impugned order of detention was passed based on the ground case registered in Cr. No. 250 of 2009 on the file of M-2, Madhavaram Milk Colony police station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 336, 394 read with 397 and 506(ii) IPC. The (impugned order of detention was passed based on the ground case registered in Cr. No. 250 of 2009 on the file of M-2, Madhavaram Milk Colony police station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 336, 394 read with 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Referring to the above said ground case and the adverse cases, the detaining authority has passed the impugned order of detention on the ground that the detenu was a goonda in accordance with the definition found in Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the contention that there was no material placed before the detaining authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case, as the bail petition filed by the detenu came to be dismissed on the date of order of detention itself and the same also came to the knowledge of the detaining authority as reflected in the grounds of detention. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no reference to the fact whether the detenu was remanded in all the adverse cases and that the non-consideration of the same, especially when the involvement of the detenu in the adverse cases were brought to light from the alleged confession statement given by the detenu when he was taken into police custody between 2.7.2009 and 3.7.2009, vitiates the order of detention. 4. The submissions made by Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State on the above said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were also heard. The relevant documents were also perused. 5. Adverse cases 1 to 15 came to be registered on various dates between 25.6.2008 to 26.6.2009 for offences punishable under Section 379 IPC. Sixteenth and seventeenth adverse cases were registered for offences punishable under Sections 392 IPC on 26.6.2009 and 28.6.2009 respectively. All the seventeen adverse cases were registered against unnamed accused persons,. The ground case, namely Cr. No. 250 of 2009 came to be registered on the file of M-2, Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 336, 394 read with 397 and 506 (ii) IPC on 29.6.2009. All the seventeen adverse cases were registered against unnamed accused persons,. The ground case, namely Cr. No. 250 of 2009 came to be registered on the file of M-2, Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 336, 394 read with 397 and 506 (ii) IPC on 29.6.2009. The detenu and a co-accused were arrested on 29.6.2009 in the above said ground case and were produced before the Magistrate for remand on 30.6.2009. Consequently, they were initially remanded to judicial custody till 14.7.2009. Meanwhile, on the application of the investigating officer, police custody of the detenu was ordered and the detenu along with the co-accused were taken into custody by the police pursuant to which recoveries were made and their involvement in all the adverse cases were brought to light. After having the detenu in their custody, police again produced the detenu on 3.7.2009 before the Magistrate for being lodged in the Central jail as a remand prisoner. Under the said circumstances, the order of detention has been clamped on the detenu stating that the presence of the detenu at large will prove to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 6. So far as the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the presence of the detenu at large shall be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order is concerned, no grievance is aired on behalf of the detenu and this Court is also satisfied with the existence of materials based on which such a subjective satisfaction has been arrived at. However, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as to the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not supported by cogent materials and hence can be termed the ipse dixit of the detaining authority. Admittedly, the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 16.7.2009. The said order of dismissal of the bail application was passed prior to the passing of the detention order. That is why the same is also referred to in the grounds detention. On the very same day, the detaining authority has clamped the order of detention expressing subjective satisfaction that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case. That is why the same is also referred to in the grounds detention. On the very same day, the detaining authority has clamped the order of detention expressing subjective satisfaction that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case. This Court is at a loss to understand what materials would have been available for the detaining authority to arrive at such a conclusion or to foretell that the detenu will be released on bail within a day in the ground case itself. Therefore, we are convinced that there is substance and force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subjective satisfaction regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is nothing but an ipse dixit of the detaining authority not supported by cogent material, which alone shall vitiate the order of detention. 7. In this case, apart from the fact that there was no material for the detaining authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case, in our considered view, there are other safeguards to see that the detenu was not released on bail within a short span of time. As many as seventeen cases were cited as adverse cases and the involvement of the detenu in all those seventeen cases came to light only after the arrest of the detenu in the ground case. If at all they were remanded in all those adverse cases also, then there would be a chance of saying that by filing bail application he would come out on bail in all those cases. By not opting to get him remanded in all the adverse cases, the police have provided a chance for the continued custody of the detenu, since at any time the detenu could be produced in the other adverse cases for being remanded. When such is the case, the detaining authority has chosen to act in a haste to clamp the order of detention on the date of dismissal of the bail application in the ground case itself. 8. This Court wants to record its disapproval of the manner in which detention orders are passed without considering the views expressed by the Courts in HCPs challenging the orders of detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 8. This Court wants to record its disapproval of the manner in which detention orders are passed without considering the views expressed by the Courts in HCPs challenging the orders of detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Almost majority of the cases end in quashing the orders of detention on the ground of non-application of mind regarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It seems the sponsoring authorities as well as the detaining authorities are proceeding on the assumption that detention order should be passed while the detenu is in remand and before ever he is released on bail. But the preponderance of authorities in this regard shows that the power to pass an order of detention can be exercised irrespective of the fact whether the detenu is on bail or is in custody. But when the detaining authority chosen to clamp an order of detention while the detenu is in custody, the authority must be satisfied with the imminent or real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. In other words, when detention orders are to be passed against persons in judicial custody as remand prisoners, an additional satisfaction that there is real possibility of the persons coming out on bail. Despite the fact that in majority of cases detention orders are struck down on this ground of non-application of mind regarding the imminent or real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, the authorities continue to pass such orders not bothering the quashing of such orders. This places on record its inability to approve the wisdom of the detaining authorities in passing such orders of detention. 9. In the case on hand, there is even non-application of mind as to whether the detenu was remanded in the adverse cases. The possibility of his coming out on bail in the adverse cases has not been adverted to. It is also brought to our notice that a co-accused in the ground case by name M.Vinod (a) Vincent on whom an order of detention as goonda was clamped on 16.7.2009 itself, moved a habeas corpus petition before this Court and a division bench of this Court set aside the said order by order dated 10.11.2009 made in H.C.P.No. 1573 of 2009. The reason for setting aside the said order was that there was no cogent material for the satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the possibility of his (Vinod @ Vincent) coming out on bail in the ground case. The ratio applies to the detenu in the case on hand with equal force. 10. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the order of detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, the habeas corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order of the second respondent in Memo No. BDFGISSV.50 of 2009 dated 16.7.2009 is set aside. The detenu, Thiyagu @ Paul Thiyagu, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.