Judgment :- (M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. This petition challenges an order of the second respondent dated 27.3.2010, whereby the sister of the petitioner by name Paulina was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding her as a Goonda as defined under the provisions of that Act. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and all the materials and in particular, the order under challenge were scrutinized. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases namely (1) S8 Adambakkam PS Cr.No.537/2008 under Sections 353, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC and (2) S8 Adambakkam PS Cr.No.141/2010 under Sections 147, 148, 448, 427 and 302 IPC and also in one ground case registered by S8 Adambakkam PS in Crime No.142/2010 under Sections 341, 392, 336 and 506(ii) IPC for an occurrence that has taken place on 28.2.2010, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the materials has made the order under challenge after recording the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel raised the following grounds which, according to him, would suffice to set aside the order. According to him, the order came to be passed on 27.3.2010, and the detenu, according to the department, was involved in two adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above. In respect the second adverse case, the same was registered under Sec.302 IPC, and an application for bail was filed in Crl.M.P.No.960/2010 before the Principal Sessions Division, Chengalpattu, and the same was dismissed on 17.3.2010. As far as the ground case was concerned, it was registered under Sections 341, 392, 336 and 506(ii) IPC, and a bail application was filed in Crl.M.P.No.1050/2010 and the same was dismissed on 25.3.2010, by the same Court. The order under challenge came to be passed on 27.3.2010, and thus within a short span of two days therefrom, it was made. But the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, and this was without any material whatsoever. 5. The order under challenge came to be passed on 27.3.2010, and thus within a short span of two days therefrom, it was made. But the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, and this was without any material whatsoever. 5. Added further the learned Counsel that though it was observed by the authority that in similar cases bail was granted by the criminal Court, no material was actually supplied in order to accept the same, and under the circumstances, the order has become infirm. 6. Added further the learned Counsel that the special report as found in the booklet, did not contain the date, and it did not enable her to understand whether the special report was made before or during or after the passing of the order. 7. The learned Counsel would further add as the last ground that it could be seen from the materials that the remand was made on her surrender till 26.3.2010 and thereafter to 9.4.2010; but from the booklet, it could be seen that the copy of the remand order which was made on 26.3.2010, was actually received only on 29.3.2010, but the same was placed before the detaining authority; that it is highly curious that the order under challenge came to be passed on 27.3.2010 earlier, and thus those materials could not have been placed before the passing of the order, and hence it would also vitiate the order. 8. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 9. As could be seen above, the detenu was involved in three cases namely two adverse cases and one ground case. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, both the bail applications in the second adverse case in Crl.M.P.No.960/2010 and in the ground case in Crl.M.P.No.1050/2010 were dismissed on 17.3.2010 and 25.3.2010 respectively, and the order came to be passed on 27.3.2010. But, the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that though the authority has observed that in similar cases, bail was granted, no materials were supplied. But, the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that though the authority has observed that in similar cases, bail was granted, no materials were supplied. Under the circumstances, it can be well stated that the observation made by the authority that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail was without material, much less cogent material which the law would require. Hence as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, the order has become defective. 10. Added further, the special report did not contain the date. Yet another circumstance noticed by the Court is that the copy of the remand extension order which was made on 26.3.2010, by the concerned Judicial Magistrate was received only on 29.3.2010. The same was also placed before the detaining authority. It is a matter of surprise to note that the detention order came to be passed on 27.3.2010 itself, and therefore, it would be quite clear that those materials could have been placed before the authority subsequent to the passing of the order, and the detaining authority could not have gone through the said order which was actually received on 29.3.2010. Under the circumstances, it would be indicative of the fact that all the materials the copies of which were served on the detenu and placed before the Court were actually not placed before the detaining authority. All these grounds, in the considered opinion of this Court, would make the order under challenge defective. Accordingly, it is declared as infirm. 11. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless her custody is required in connection with any other case.