Judgment :- (M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Suresh @ Dabukku Suresh. She challenges an order of the second respondent in No.507/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 07.12.2009, whereby her husband was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition and the grounds of detention are looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in five adverse cases namely (1) H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar PS Cr.No.95/2003 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506(ii), 427 and 302 IPC r/w 149 and 34 IPC; (2) M3 Puzhal PS Cr.No.268/2007 under Sections 147, 148, 342, 324 and 506(ii) IPC; (3) B1 North Beach PS Cr.No.27/2009 under Sec.397 IPC; (4) H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar PS Cr.No.888/2009 under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and (5) H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar PS Cr.No.891/2009 under Sections 341, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and also in one ground case registered by H4 Korukkupet PS in Crime No.441/2009 under Sections 341, 323, 384, 307, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC for an occurrence that took place on 30.11.2009, and he was arrested on the very day and remanded, the sponsoring authority after scrutiny of the materials placed, formed an opinion that the detenu should be detained under Act 14/82 and hence passed the order which is under challenge. 4. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the 4th and 5th adverse cases and also in the ground case, no bail application was filed; but the authority even after observing so in the order, has stated that there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail, which is without material, much less cogent material; that apart from that, the said fact was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority, and hence it has got to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention. 6. As could be seen from the available materials, the detaining authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him, pertaining to five adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is an admitted position that he has not moved any bail application in the 4th and 5th adverse cases and also in the ground case, but the authority has made the observation that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It is only an expression of the impression in the mind of the authority or an inference and that too without any basis or material, much less cogent material as the law would require. A Division Bench of this Court has held in a case reported in 2008 (1) MWN (CR.) 158 (S.VENUGOPAL V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER) as follows: "9. Keeping in view the ratio of the aforesaid decisions and more particularly the opinion expressed by the Full Bench as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in 2006 (1) SCC (CRI) 593 (cited supra) notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations against the detenu, particularly relating to the ground case, we are constrained to come to the conclusion that the observation of the Detaining Authority "that there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another Application before the same Court or Higher Courts since in similar cases bails are granted by the same Court or Higher Court" is mere ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority without any cogent material. The offences allegedly committed by the detenu and the background in which such offences were allegedly committed clearly indicate that the offences are not of a routine nature wherein one can assume that bail would be granted almost as a matter of course either by the Sessions Judge or by the High Court." This Court is unable to notice anything to deviate from the earlier view of the Court. Under the circumstances, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 7. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the second respondent, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.