Judgment :- 1. Challenge is made to an order of the Second Respondent dated 28.5.2010 in detention order C.O.C. No. 8 of 2010, whereby, the order of detention came to be passed against the Petitioner’s brother-in-law, viz., detenu Chokkai @ Shanmugam, s/o Kaliyappan, aged 31 years, detaining him under Act 14 of 1982 terming him as a “Bootlegger”. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel 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 that the detenu involved in three adverse cases, namely, (1) Kariyappattinam P.S.Cr. No.55/2009 under Section 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A) and Section 4(1)(aaa), Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937; (2) Kariyapattinam P.S.Cr. No.143/2009 under Section 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A) and Section 4(1)(aaa), Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937; (3) Kariyapattinam P.S.Cr. No.256/2009 under Section 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A) and Section 4(1)(aaa), Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and also a ground case registered by Kariyapattinam P.S.Cr. No. 106/2010 under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A), Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, for an occurrence that took place on 11.5.2010, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on the very same day, 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 public order has made the order under challenge after terming him as “Bootlegger” as defined under the provisions of the enactment. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the Petitioner, the learned Counsel raised one ground, which according to him is suffice to set aside the order of detention. According to learned Counsel, in the detention order, the Authority has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the detenu would indulge in such activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, but, no where the Authority has stated that there is a real possibility or imminent possibility or likelihood of he detenu coming out on bail and this would vitiate the order of detention and it has got to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the State on the above contents. 6. As could be seen above, the order of detention came to be passed on 28.5.2010 terming the detenu as a “Bootlegger”. The Detaining Authority has also recorded the subjective satisfaction. 5. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the State on the above contents. 6. As could be seen above, the order of detention came to be passed on 28.5.2010 terming the detenu as a “Bootlegger”. The Detaining Authority has also recorded the subjective satisfaction. Before sustaining the order, the Court has to necessarily look into whether subjective satisfaction so recorded by the Detaining Authority was based on necessary materials as required. It could be seen from the detention order, the Authority has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the detenu would indulge in such activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, but, no where the Authority has stated that there is a real possibility or imminent possibility or likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. In a given case like this, the Authority must form an opinion before recording subjective satisfaction and that too, on the basis of the materials available and it becomes necessary for him to indicate, whether there is a real possibility or imminent possibility or likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, but the Authority has not stated any terms to indicate the same. There was an occasion for the Full Bench of this Court to consider the same in Kalaiselvi, G. v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2007 (5) CTC 657, wherein, it has been held as under: 24. From the reading of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the conclusion of the Detaining Authority that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail must be based on cogent materials and not on the mere ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority. As has been observed by the Supreme Court, the question as to whether there is possibility of being released on bail depends upon several factors, such as nature of offence, the stage of the investigation, the availability of statutory bail as envisaged under Section 167(2), Proviso of Cr.P.C. Even though it is not possible nor desirable to enumerate the circumstances in which bail is likely to be granted, one can venture to say that it is very rare for a Court of law to grant bail during pendency of the investigation when there is allegation of commission of serious offence, such as punishable under Section 302 or Section 395, IPC. On the other hand, it is also safe to conclude that in offences the Courts usually grant bail notwithstanding the fact that investigation may be still going on. Similarly, when a charge-sheet is not filed within the statutory period contemplated, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegation, on the expiry of the period, the Accused got a right to be released on bail. 25. In the present case, the conclusion of the Detaining Authority, as already been extracted. We have searched for the materials on record in support of such conclusion and we find none. There was no imminent possibility of the detenu obtaining statutory bail as hardly 60 days had elapsed from the date of the arrest and the had more than a month for completion of the investigation. The alleged offence under Section 302, IPC cannot be characterised as an offence of routine nature which would prompt any Court to grant bail even before completion of investigation. Top of it, the Bail Application had in fact been rejected by the Sessions Judge and no other Bail Application was pending. In such a factual situation, in our considered opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court in T.V. Saravanan v. State, 2006 (2) SCC 664 , is squarely applicable and it can be said that the conclusion of the Detaining Authority is mere ipse dixit and there is hardly any material in support of such conclusion. On this score also, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 7. In view of the above, thisCourt is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where it could be stated that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Authority was without any sufficient or cogent material at all. Further, there is nothing in the detention order to indicate that he arrived at the subjective satisfaction before passing the detention order and in my considered opinion, this is a good ground, which would vitiate the order of detention. Hence, the detention order is to be set aside. 8. Under such circumstances, the above ground is available to the detenu and this Court is of the opinion that it would vitiate the order of detention. Hence, the detention order is to be set aside. 9. Hence, the detention order is to be set aside. 8. Under such circumstances, the above ground is available to the detenu and this Court is of the opinion that it would vitiate the order of detention. Hence, the detention order is to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention, passed by the Second Respondent dated 28.5.2010 in C.O.C. No.8/2010 and the detenu Chokkai @ Shanmugam, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.