Judgment : Per P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J. The petitioner, who has been detained as Goonda by the impugned order of the second respondent, made in Detention Order No. 114 of 2009, dated 18.6.2009, has brought forth this habeas corpus petition seeking issue of Writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of detention and directing the release of the petitioner after setting aside the said order of detention. 2. The Detaining Authority noticed as many as five adverse cases, namely, (1) Crime No. 82 of 2008; (2) Crime No. 28 of 2009; (3) Crime No. 36 of 2009 (4) Crime No. 55 of 2009; and (5) Crime No. 96 of 2009 all on the file of C.3 Seven Wells Police Station and the ground case in Crime No. 414 of 2009 also registered on the file of C.3 Seven Wells Police Station to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu was a Goonda. 3. Though a number of grounds have been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the habeas corpus petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the ground attacking that part of the grounds of detention which deals with the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority as to the real or imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case as well as four of the adverse cases, in which, the detenu had been remanded. 4. So far as first adverse case is concerned, presumably the detenu was on bail. In the adverse cases 2 to 5 and in the ground case, admittedly he was remanded and no Bail Application was filed so far. However, relying on the proposal submitted by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has expressed an opinion that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail as in similar cases, bails were granted by the Trial courts, Courts of Sessions and High Court after a lapse of time. The said part of the grounds of detention is attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be nothing but an ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority without supported by cogent materials. The said part of the grounds of detention is attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be nothing but an ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority without supported by cogent materials. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of a Division Bench sitting in Madurai Bench of this Court in Chandru v. Commissioner of Police, Thiruchirapalli City, Trichy and Another, 2007 (1) TCJ 766, of which one of us was a party and Another unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Chelladurai v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 and Another, H.C.P. No. 551 of 2009, dated 16.6.2009. In the above cited decisions, both the Division Benches have held that the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the real or imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail shall not be ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority, but it should be supported by cogent materials. 5. We have also heard the submissions for Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State in this regard. 6. After hearing the submissions of Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and upon perusing the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the mere statement of the Detaining Authority that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, that too, when no Bail Application has been filed and without supported by any other material, shall not be enough to show that the satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority is on cogent materials. In this regard, the relevant observations made by the earlier Division Benches in the judgments, quoted above, squarely apply to the case on hand also. On that ground alone, we are inclined to set aside the order of detention. 7. In the result, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. On that ground alone, we are inclined to set aside the order of detention. 7. In the result, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. A copy of this order shall be marked to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai-600 104 so that the learned counsel for the petitioner can claim his fee.