Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 3.5.2010, whereby the son of the petitioner by name Nagaraj was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982 branding him as a Goonda. 2. All the materials placed and in particular, the order under challenge, are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also looked into the grounds of challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in eleven adverse cases namely (1) J6 Thiruvanmiyur PS Cr.No.164/2008 under Sec.379 IPC; (2) J6 Thiruvanmiyur PS Cr.No.673/2008 under Sections 341, 336, 392 and 506(2) IPC; (3) J5 Shastri Nagar PS Cr.No.203/2010 under Sec.379 IPC; (4) J7 Velachery PS Cr.No.195/2010 under Sec.379 IPC; (5) J4 Kotturpuram PS Cr.No.165/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (6) J7 Velachery PS Cr.No.242/2010 under Sec.379 IPC; (7) J4 Kotturpuram PS Cr.No.62/2010 under Sec.379 IPC; (8) J1 Saidapet PS Cr.No.597/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (9) J4 Kotturpuram PS Cr.No.80/2010 under Sec.379 IPC; (10) J1 Saidapet PS Cr.No.306/2010 under Sec.379 IPC and (11) J6 Thiruvanmiyur PS Cr.No.356/2010 under Sec.379 IPC, and also in a ground case registered by J4 Kotturpuram PS in Crime No.132/2010 under Sections 341, 392, 394 and 506(2) IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 21.4.2010, and he was arrested on the same day, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the entire materials, made the order of detention after recording its 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 ground which, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is so strong enough to set aside the order, is that the detenu was arrested on 21.4.2010, in connection with the three adverse cases in Crime Nos.165/2009, 80/2010 and 62/2010 of J4 Kotturpuram PS and also Crime No.132/2010 shown as the ground case above; that he has not moved any bail application in any one of the above said four cases; that while the matter stood thus, the authority has stated in its order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail; and that this was without any basis or material, much less cogent material. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. As stated above, the detaining authority on perusal of the materials placed by the sponsoring authority, has recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and has passed the order under challenge. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the detenu has not moved any bail application in the three adverse cases in Crime Nos.165/2009, 80/2010 and 62/2010 and also in the ground case in Crime No.132/2010. But, the authority even after recording so, has stated in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail. This was only an expression of the impression in the mind of the authority, and that too, without any basis or material, much less cogent material which the law would require. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order has become infirm, and it has got to be set aside. 7. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.