Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) 1. This petition is brought forth by the sister of the detenu challenging the order of the second respondent in 72/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 10.4.2010, whereby her brother Sasi @ Sasi Kumar 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 twelve adverse cases viz. 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 twelve adverse cases viz. (i) Crime No.430 of 2000 registered by T-15 SRMC P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No.23 of 2001 registered by T-15 SRMC P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Crime No.425 of 2001 registered by T-5 Thiruverkadu P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) Crime No.347 of 2001 registered by T-15 SRMC P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (v) Crime No.453 of 2001 registered by T-15 SRMC P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (vi) Crime No.454 of 2001 registered by T-15 SRMC P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 511 of the Indian Penal Code; (vii) Crime No.838 of 2001 registered by T-4 Maduravoyal P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (viii)Crime No.897 of 2001 registered by T-4 Maduravoyal P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (ix) Crime No.472 of 2001 registered by T-15 SRMC P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (x) Crime No.1134 of 2001 registered by T-10 Thirumullaivoyal P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (xi) Crime No.72 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamalee P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (xii) Crime No.85 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamalee P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.162 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamallee police station for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 18.3.2010 and the detenu was arrested on 19.3.2010, 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. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which, according to him was strong enough to set aside the detention order is that the detenu moved for bail in 11th and 12th adverse cases viz. Crime Nos.72 and 85 of 2010 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee and the same were dismissed on 8.4.2010, but the detention order came to be passed on 10.4.2010. Apart from this, the detenu has not moved for any bail in ground case in Crime No.162 of 2010, which was registered for the grave offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. But the Authority 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. This 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 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 twelve adverse cases 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. It is an admitted position that though the detenu has moved for bail in 11th and 12th adverse cases viz. Crime Nos.72 and 85 of 2010 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, the same were dismissed on 8.4.2010. But the detenu has not moved any bail in respect of ground case, which is registered for grave offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. But the Authority has observed in paragraph 4 of the detention order as follows:- "4. I am aware that Thiru. Sasi @ Sasi Kumar is in remand in T-12, Poonamallee police station Crime Nos.72/2010, 85/2010 and 162/2010. He has filed a bail petition in Poonamallee P.S. Cr.Nos.72/2010 and 85/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate II, Poonameelee vide Crl.M.P. Nos.1736/2010 and 1737/2010 and the same were dismissed on 08.04.2010. I am aware that Thiru. Sasi @ Sasi Kumar is in remand in T-12, Poonamallee police station Crime Nos.72/2010, 85/2010 and 162/2010. He has filed a bail petition in Poonamallee P.S. Cr.Nos.72/2010 and 85/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate II, Poonameelee vide Crl.M.P. Nos.1736/2010 and 1737/2010 and the same were dismissed on 08.04.2010. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail for the above cases by filing a 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. 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. Sasi @ Sasi Kumar is 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." 7. From the above, it is quite clear that the observation of the Detaining Authority is without any material. 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. On this ground, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in 72/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 10.4.2010. the detenu, namely, Sasi @ Sasi Kumar, 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.