Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This Petition is brought forth by the detenu challenging an order of the First Respondent made in proceedings C.O.P./T.C./I.S./D.O.No.48/2010 dated 05.07.2010 whereby the detenu Guna @ Gunasekaran @ Siddikboi S/o Uthirapathi was ordered to be detained as a Goonda 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 eight Adverse cases viz., (1) Singaram P.S., Cr. No.306/2008 under Section 392, 506(ii), IPC (2) Contonment Crime P.S., Cr. No.49/2010 under Sections 457 and 380, IPC (3) Cantonment C rime P.S., Cr. No.980/2010 under Sections 457 and 380, IPC (4) Cantonment Crime P.S., Cr. No.1060/2010 under Section 380, IPC (5) Cantonment Crime P.S., Cr. No.1061/2010 under Section 380, IPC (6) Cantonment Crime P.S., Cr. No.1049/2010 under Section 380, IPC (7) Cantonment Crime P.S., Cr. No.1047/2010 under Section 380, IPC (8) Candonment Crime P.S., Cr. No.1060/2010 under Section 380, IPC and a Ground case registered by Candonment Crime P.S., Cr. No.1070/2010 under Section 392, IPC for an occurrence that took place on 12.4.2010 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 arguments of behalf of the Petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the detenu ha not moved for bail in all the Adverse cases and in the Ground case but the authority has stated that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail without any material muchless cogent material as the law would require. Added further learned Counsel, it was mentioned in the grounds of detention that his relative was taking steps to take him out on bail but in page No.116 of the booklet, the statement alleged to have been given by the wife of the detenu was found and it did not reveal that any steps were already taken but would show that she desires to take steps to take him out on bail. Therefore, on the above grounds, the detention order is vitiated and the same 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 Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to eight 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 seen that the detenu was arrested on 12.4.2010 not only in the Ground case but also in ell the Adverse cases, but the authority has stated that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner it was mentioned in the grounds of detention that his relative was taking steps to take him out on bail but in page No.116 of the booklet, the statement alleged to have been given by the wife of the detenu did not reveal that any steps were already taken but it would show that the desires to take steps to take him out on bail. Therefore, it cannot be considered to be as steps taken and there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Under such circumstances, the observation made by the authority that there is real possibility that the detenu coming out on bail is without any material muchless cogent material. It is 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. Therefore. The Court is of the opinion that on the above grounds, the detention order is infirm and the same 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 custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.