Judgment :- 1. This Petition is brought forth by the wife of detenu challenging an order of the First Respondent made in proceedings No.379/2010 dated 29.06.2010 whereby the detenu Durai son of Paulkarasu was ordered to be detained as a Video Pirate under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982. 2. The Affidavit filed in support of the Petition and the grounds of detention are looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in two Adverse cases viz., (1) Central Crime Branch, Chennai X.Cr. No.26/2010 under Section 292(2) (a), IPC (2) Central Crime Branch, Chennai X.Cr.No.91/2010 under Section 51 r/w 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and a ground case registered by Central Crime Branch, Chennai X.Cr.No.91/2010 under Section 51 r/w 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 292 (2), IPC for an occurrence that took place on 26.06.2010 and the detenu was arrested on the same day, the Detaining Authority after scrutiny of the materials placed, was of the opinion that the detenu should be detained under the said Act since his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and hence, passed the order which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing the argument on behalf of the Petitioner, learned Counsel would submit that the detenu was arrested on 26.6.2010 and he has moved for bail and the same was pending and within a span of two or three days, the detention order came to be passed wherein it is stated that there is likelihood of the detneu coming out on bail without any material muchless cogent material as the law would require. Leaned Counsel would further submit that the detenu was actually remanded to judicial custody by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town but in paragraph No.6 of the detention order, it is stated as if the detneu was judicially remanded by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. Learned Counsel would further submit that the Arrest Card as could be seen from page 24 of the Booklet, the detenu was arrested at 16.00 hours on 26.6.2010 but in the grounds of detention, its is stated as if the detenu was arrested at about 15.30 hours. Therefore, it would indicate the non-application of mind on the part of the authority. Therefore, it would indicate the non-application of mind on the part of the authority. Hence, on the above grounds, the detention order has to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 6. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Video Pirate, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to two 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 the detenu was arrested on 26.6.2010 and he has moved for bail and the same, was pending and within a span of two or three days, the detention order came to be passed wherein it is stated that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. It is only an expression of 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. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner the detenu was actually remanded to judicial custody by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town but in paragraph No.6 of the detention order, it is stated as if the detenu was remanded to judicial custody by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. Further, at page 24 of the booklet, the arrest cared would show that the detenu was arrested at 16.00 hours on 26.6.2010 but in the grounds of detention, it is stated as if the detenu was arrested at about 15.30 hours. All would indicate the fact that the detention order was passed without application of mind. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the detention order has to be set aside. 7. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the First Respondent, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.