Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 23.1.2010, whereby the petitioner detenu 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 three adverse cases namely (1) B1 North Beach PS Cr.No.666/2008 under Sections 341, 323, 326, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC; (2) B1 North Beach PS Cr.No.289/2009 under Sec.397 of IPC and (3) B1 North Beach PS Cr.No.3/2010 under Sections 341, 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC and also in a ground case in Crime No.9/2010 of B1 North Beach PS registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 384, 307 and 506(ii) IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 9.1.2010, and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on the very same day, 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. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel Ms.S.Padma would submit that in the instant case, it was shown that he was involved in three adverse cases and one ground case; that the arrest was shown on 9.1.2010, in two cases in Crime Nos.3/2010 and 9/2010; that as far as Cr.No.3/2010 is concerned, he did not move any bail application; but, he moved a bail application in Cr.No.9/2010 before the Principal Sessions Division, Chennai, and the same was dismissed on 19.1.2010, and thus it would be quite clear that on the day when the order came to be passed on 23.1.2010, neither an application was filed in Crime No.3/2010, nor an application was pending consideration in Crime No.9/2010 before any Court of criminal law; but the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the petitioner coming out on bail; and that this was without any material, much less cogent material. 5. 5. Added further the learned Counsel that the authority has also further observed in the grounds of detention that the relatives are taking steps to bail him out, but no material indicating that any statement of the relatives was recorded, was placed; that apart from that, the date of recording the statement is also not made known; that though a special report was alleged to have been made, it did not contain the date; that under the circumstances, the order has become inform, and hence it has got to be set aside on these grounds. 6. The 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 above, the petitioner was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 terming him as a Goonda since he was involved in four cases mentioned above. On perusal of the materials, it would be quite clear that he has made an application for bail in Crime No.9/2010 which was registered by B1 North Beach PS under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 384, 307 and 506(ii) IPC; but, he has not moved any bail application in Crime No.3/2010 registered by the very same police station. It is pertinent to point out that he moved the bail application before the Court of Session in Crime No.9/2010, and the same was also dismissed. Though it was referred to in the grounds of detention that the said bail application was dismissed, no date of dismissal was actually mentioned. Now, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that actually the dismissal order was made on 19.1.2010. The order under challenge came to be passed on 23.1.2010, and thus it would be quite clear that the order of detention came to be passed within a week from the date of the order of dismissal of the bail application. That apart, as far as Crime No.3/2010 is concerned, no bail application was made. Under the circumstances, it is quite clear that actually in both these crime numbers, there was no bail application pending before any Court of criminal law. Paragraph 4 of the order of the authority reads as follows: "4. That apart, as far as Crime No.3/2010 is concerned, no bail application was made. Under the circumstances, it is quite clear that actually in both these crime numbers, there was no bail application pending before any Court of criminal law. Paragraph 4 of the order of the authority reads as follows: "4. I am aware that Thiru.Murugan @ Petrol Murugan is in remand in B-1 North Beach Police Station Crime Nos.3/2010 and 9/2010 and he has moved a bail application for the above case in B-1 North beach Police Station Crime No.9/2010 before the Court of Sessions, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.472/2010 and the same was dismissed. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru. Murugan @ Petrol Murugan are taking action to take him on bail in the above case in B-1 North Beach Police Station Crime No.9/2010 by filing another bail application and a fresh bail application in B-1 North Beach Police Station Crime No.3/2010 before the appropriate Court and since in a similar 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. Further in a case registered in V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.381/2009 under Sections 147, 448, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and 3(1) TNPP (D&L) Act, bail was granted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, in Crl.M.P.No.1361/2009. Hence, there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application in the above case in B-1 North Beach Police Station Crime No.9/2010 by filing another bail application and a fresh bail application in B-1 North Beach Police Station Crime No.3/2010 before the appropriate Court." 8. From the very reading of the above observation, it would be quite clear that the authority has observed that there was a real possibility of the petitioner detenu coming out on bail. While the cases were registered for grave offences, and the bail application made in Crime No.9/2010, was dismissed on 19.1.2010, and also no application was filed in Crime No.3/2010, the observation made by the authority that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail was only an expression of the impression in the mind of the authority without any basis or material, much less cogent material which the law would require. It would be indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 9. Added further, the detaining authority has also observed in the same paragraph 4 as referred to above, that the relatives of the petitioner are taking steps to bail him out. But, no material is available to indicate that any statement was recorded from any one of the relatives. That apart, even the special report did not contain the date. All, in the considered opinion of the Court, would make the order infirm, and hence it is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the order of detention passed by the second respondent is set aside, and the petitioner detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.