Judgment :- M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. 1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 25.3.2010, whereby the petitioners son was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 terming him as a Goonda as described under the provisions of the Act. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available and 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 registered by S-8 Adambakkam PS in Crime No.109/2010 under Sections 341, 294(b) and 323 of IPC and also in a ground case in Crime No.141/2010 registered by S-8 Adambakkam PS under Sections 147, 148, 448, 427 and 302 IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 28.2.2010, and he surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, on 1.3.2010, and was remanded to judicial custody, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the materials placed, made the order under challenge after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged two grounds. Firstly, a bail application was filed in the ground case, and it was dismissed on 17.3.2010; but, the impugned order came to be passed on 25.3.2010, and thus on the day when the order came to be passed, there was no bail application pending before any Court of criminal law. Under the circumstances, the observation made by the detaining authority that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail as found in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, is without any material, much less cogent material. Secondly, the special report did not contain the date when it was made, and hence it has got to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. As could be seen above, the petitioners son was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 terming him as a Goonda since he was involved in two cases as mentioned above. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. As could be seen above, the petitioners son was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 terming him as a Goonda since he was involved in two cases as mentioned above. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he has made a bail application in the ground case, and the same was dismissed on 17.3.2010, which is quite evident from paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention. Paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention reads as follows: "I am aware that Thiru. Nagoor @ Nagoor Meeran is in remand in S-8, Adambakkam Police Station Crime No.141/2010. He has filed a bail petition before District Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in S-8, Adambakkam P.S. Cr. No.141/2010 vide Crl.M.P. No.960/2010 and the same was dismissed on 17.03.2010. I am also aware that there is real possibility of him coming out on bail for the above case by filing another bail application before the Court of Sessions or Honble High Court, since in similar cases bails are granted by the above courts after a lapse of time." 7. The very reading of the above would clearly indicate that the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case, was dismissed on 17.3.2010. The order of detention came to be made on 25.3.2010. Thus on the date when the impugned order was passed, there was no bail application pending before any Court of criminal law. But, the detaining authority has observed that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail. It can be well stated that the same cannot but be an expression of the impression in the mind of the authority and that too without any basis or material much less cogent material which the law would require. 8. Apart from the above, it is pertinent to point out that the special report placed before the detaining authority, did not contain the date when it was made. Therefore, both the grounds as put forth by the learned Counsel and recorded above, in the considered opinion of the Court, would make the order under challenge infirm. 9. 8. Apart from the above, it is pertinent to point out that the special report placed before the detaining authority, did not contain the date when it was made. Therefore, both the grounds as put forth by the learned Counsel and recorded above, in the considered opinion of the Court, would make the order under challenge infirm. 9. Accordingly, the order of detention passed by the second respondent, is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.