Judgment :- (M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. This petition challenges an order of the second respondent dated 13.6.2010, whereby the petitioners son Sathish was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda. 2. All the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge, are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the said detenu was involved in three adverse cases namely (1) T12 Poonamallee PS Cr.No.246/2010 under Sec.379 IPC; (2) T12 Poonamallee PS Cr.No.289/2010 and (3) T12 Poonamallee PS Cr.No.308/2010, and also in a ground case registered by T12 Poonamallee PS in Crime No.313/2010 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427 and 506(ii) r/w 397 IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 27.5.2010, and he was arrested on 28.5.2010, and on scrutiny of the entire materials, the detaining authority namely the second respondent herein, has made the order under challenge after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner inter alia raised the following point: Bail application was not filed in any one of the adverse cases. But a bail application was actually filed in the ground case, and the same was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Division, Ttiruvallur on 8.6.2010. But the authority when it made the order on 13.6.2010, has mentioned that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail. It would be quite clear that on the day when the order came to be passed, there was no bail application pending in the ground case or bail was not even asked for in any one of the three adverse cases. Hence the observation made by the authority was without basis or material much less cogent material. 5. The learned Counsel also took the Court to page Nos.79 and 80 of the booklet wherein it is stated that bail application number found in both the documents, would vary. He would further submit that the special report did not contain the date; that apart from that, in the special report, it has been mentioned as if the offence is said to have been committed under Sec.3790 of IPC, and all would suffice to set aside the order. 6. He would further submit that the special report did not contain the date; that apart from that, in the special report, it has been mentioned as if the offence is said to have been committed under Sec.3790 of IPC, and all would suffice to set aside the order. 6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. As could be seen above, 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. It is an admitted position that the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case, was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Division, Tiruvallur, on 8.6.2010. According to the learned Counsel, he has not moved any bail application in any one of the three adverse cases. Thus it would be quite clear that on the day when the impugned order came to be made, i.e., 13.6.2010, there was no bail application pending. Under the circumstances, the observation made by the detaining authority that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail, is without any basis or material, much less cogent material which the law would require. It would also be indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Therefore, the order has become defective. 8. Apart from the above, from page Nos.79 and 80 of the booklet, it would be quite clear that the bail application number as stated therein, would vary. Besides that, the special report did not contain the date. Hence the detenu was unable to know when the said report was made. It is also pertinent to note that the provision of law is mentioned in the special report as Sec.3790 IPC. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order has got to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, 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.