Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) 1. This petition is brought forth by the detenu himself challenging the order of the first respondent Memo No.219/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 17.4.2010, whereby he was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in one adverse case viz. K.1 Sembium Police Station Crime No.127 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 452, 427, 302, 307 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.174 of 2010 registered by K.1 Sembium Police station for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 324, 427, 307 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 26.3.2010 and the detenu was arrested on the same day, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the detenu has not moved any bail application so far either in the adverse cases or the ground case, but the Authority, even after recording so, has observed that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, which is non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining authority. 5. Learned counsel added further that after the arrest of the detenu, the same was not intimated to anybody, which is evident from the arrest card as found in page No.167 of the booklet, which vitiates the detention order. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside. 6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside. 6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. 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 one adverse case 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. 8. It is an admitted position that the detenu has not moved any bail application so far either in the adverse case or in the ground case, which is quite clear from paragraph 4 of the detention order which reads as follows:- "4. I am aware that Thiru. Thiyagarajan, is in remand in K.1 Sembium Police Station Crime Nos.127/2010 and 174/2010 he has not moved any bail so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru. Thiyagarajan are taking action to take him on bail in the above case by filing bail application before the Court. Since in a case registered under Sections 341 and 307 IPC at E-2 Royapettah Police Station Cr.No.382/2009, bail was granted in Crl.M.P. No.5266/2009 by the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai, within 21 days. Hence there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application in the above case before the appropriate Court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru. Thiyagarajan is also a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982." 9. Thiyagarajan is also a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982." 9. From the above, it would be quite clear that the detenu has not even filed any bail application, 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 and only an inference and that too without any basis or materials much less cogent materials as the law would require. 10. Apart from this, after the arrest of the detenu, the same was not intimated to anybody, which is evident from the arrest card as found in page No.167 of the booklet, which vitiates the detention order. On these two grounds, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the first respondent in Memo No.219/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 17.4.2010. The detenu, namely, Thiyagarajan, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.