Judgment :- (M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent dated 12.4.2010, whereby the husband of the petitioner by name Vijayan @ Vijayakumar was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 branding him as a black marketeer. 2. All the materials are looked into and in particular, the order under challenge along with the grounds of detention. 3. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. As could be seen from the available materials, pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases namely (1) Civil Supplies CID, Thiruvallur Unit, Crime No.701/2009 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 and (2) Kavarapettai PS Crime No.204/2010 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 and also in a ground case registered by Civil Supplies CID, Thiruvallur Unit, in Crime No.176/2010 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 and Sections 403, 353 and 307 IPC for an occurrence that has taken place on 28.3.2010 when he was found in possession of 42 bags each containing 50 kgs. of PDS rice and on scrutiny of the materials available, the detaining authority after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, was of the opinion that in order to prevent him from doing so, an order of detention was to be made branding him as a black marketeer, and thus made the order which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 5. 5. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel in his sincere attempt of assailing the order, would submit that the detenu, according to the department, was involved in three cases namely two adverse cases and one ground case; that the detenu moved for bail before the Principal Sessions Division, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.No.597/2010 and the same was dismissed on 9.4.2010 and the order came to be passed on 12.4.2010; that it is also pertinent to point out that both the adverse cases were concerned, he was not arrested, but, he was actually shown as absconding accused; that all the cases were registered under the provisions of the above enactment; that in such circumstances, there was no possibility of the detenu coming out on bail; but the authority on the contrary, has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, and that too within a short span of 3 days from the date of dismissal of the bail application, and hence it was without any material, much less cogent material. 6. Added further the learned Counsel that it was claimed by the Investigator that he was found in possession of the contraband namely 42 bags of PDS rice on 28.3.2010, and he was arrested at about 8.15 hours and brought to the police station, and a case was registered at about 11.30 A.M. as could be seen from the materials which were placed before the authority for passing the order; that in the document as found in page No.71 of the booklet which contained the copy of the telegraphic message alleged to have been given to the relatives of the detenu, the crime number is shown; that it is pertinent to point out that if the arrest has actually taken place at about 8.15 A.M. on that day and the FIR was actually registered at about 11.30 A.M., there is no question of the crime number being mentioned in the telegraphic message which is alleged to have been given at about 10.00 A.M.; that it also casts a cloud of suspicion; that under the circumstances, the detaining authority should have called for a clarification, but failed to do so and hence on both the grounds, the order has got to be set aside since it is infirm and defective. 7. 7. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. On scrutiny of the materials, this Court has to necessarily agree with the learned Counsel on both the grounds stated above. As could be seen from the materials, the detenu was involved in three cases mentioned above, out of which, the third case is shown as the ground case which was registered for an occurrence that took place on 28.3.2010 when he was found in possession of 42 bags of PDS rice each containing 50 kgs. From the materials, it could be seen that the arrest was shown at about 8.15 hours on 28.3.2010, when he was found in possession of the said contraband. The case was subsequently registered at the police station at about 11.30 A.M. on the day. But, the telegraphic message as found in page No.71 of the booklet was given at about 10.00 A.M. in which Crime Number is found. If really a telegraphic message was actually given at about 10.00 A.M. and the case was also registered at about 11.30 A.M. in the police station, Crime No.176/2010 could not have been entered in the telegraphic message, and thus quite natural it will cast a doubt. Since the same as put forth therein cannot be found to be correct, a duty was cast upon the detaining authority to call for an explanation, but he failed to do so. 9. Apart from the above, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, pursuant to the registration of the third case shown as ground case, on 28.3.2010, the detenu has moved a bail application before the Principal Sessions Division, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.No.597/2010, and the same came up for orders and was dismissed on 9.4.2010. As far as the other two adverse cases were concerned, he was shown as absconding accused since he was not arrested. Thus three cases were pending against him on the day when the order of detention came to be passed on 12.4.2010. As far as the other two adverse cases were concerned, he was shown as absconding accused since he was not arrested. Thus three cases were pending against him on the day when the order of detention came to be passed on 12.4.2010. It is pertinent to point out that when he was shown as absconding accused in two cases and the bail application filed in the ground case, was dismissed only on 9.4.2010, shortly thereafter within a few days the order of detention came to be passed on 12.4.2010, stating that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It would be indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority since the said observation of real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail was without material, much less cogent material which the law would require. Under the circumstances, on both the grounds, the order has got to be set aside. 10. 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 his custody is required in connection with any other case.