Judgment : C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. The detenu Bhaskar himself is the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition and he has challenged the order of detention dated 5.7.2011 passed by the first respondent. 2. The detaining authority relied on one adverse case, namely Crime No. 251 of 2010, on the file of PEW, Madhavaram Unit and also the ground case in Crime No. 574 of 2011, on the file of PEW, Ambattur, Unit for the alleged offences under Sections 4(1) (aa),” 4(1-A) TNP Act read with 272, 468, 471 IPC, to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu is a “Bootlegger” as defined under Section 2 (b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 3. Though various grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to raise an additional ground and we permit the same. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the, son of the detenu herein involved in the ground case was also detained under preventive detention by the very same authority and separate order of detention was passed on the very same day and that detention was also challenged in H.C.P. No. 1015 of 2011 and during pendency of the petition, he has been released as per the advice of the Board and since the allegation against both the detenus are one and the same in the ground case and even past record is also one and the same, the State Government while confirming the detention order against the present detenu on 26.9.2011 ought to have considered the revocation of the detention of the co-accused in the ground case, who is none else than the son of the detenu herein, and there is nothing to show that the said revocation order was placed before the State Government and the State Government has mechanically confirmed the order of detention of the present detenu. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the opinion of the Advisory Board in the detention of the co-accused in the ground case is not a relevant circumstance for the purpose of confirmation of the present detention order, impugned in this petition. 5. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the opinion of the Advisory Board in the detention of the co-accused in the ground case is not a relevant circumstance for the purpose of confirmation of the present detention order, impugned in this petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Suman v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Department Of Prohibition and Excise, Fort St. George, Chennai 9 and Another . The Division Bench considered a similar question in the said case and held as follows: “… … 19. In Mohd. Shakeel Wahid Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra and Others 1983 SCC (Cri) 509 , relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact that the order of preventive detention of a person on the basis ot selfsame incident had been revoked on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority, was considered to have vitiated the order of preventive detention. The only difference in the said case and the present case is that in the said case, the opinion and the consequent order of release were not brought to the notice of the detaining authority, whereas in the present case, such opinion and the consequent release of the detenues, who had been detained on the basis of the very same ground case, was not brought to the notice ot the State Government while it was considering the question of confirmation of the order of detention. In our opinion, this itself in the facts situation does not make a difference in the matter. 20. As per Section 12(1), even if the Advisory Board gives a opinion that there is insufficient cause for detention of a person, the State Government is not bound to confirm the order of detention, but the State Government “may confirm the detention order”. 20. As per Section 12(1), even if the Advisory Board gives a opinion that there is insufficient cause for detention of a person, the State Government is not bound to confirm the order of detention, but the State Government “may confirm the detention order”. In other words, even though as per Section 12(2) the opinion of the Advisory Board that there is no sufficient cause for the detention is binding and the State Government is bound to revoke the detention in such case, the opinion of the Advisory Board that there is sufficient cause for detention is not binding on the State Government and inspite of such opinion regarding sufficiency for the cause of the detention, the State Government may revoke such detention. It is obvious that while considering the question of confirmation of the order of detention under Section 12(1), the State Government is required to apply its mind to all relevant circumstances. The tact that the Advisory Board had given a particular opinion for releasing a “co-detenu”, who had been detained on the very same ground case, is obviously a relevant circumstance to be considered by the State Government and the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court is equally applicable. 21. ..... 22. ..... 23. Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that if such submission is accepted, the State Government would be required to consider and apply opinion of the Advisory Board in respect of all the detenues involved in different cases. We do not think that the State Government is required to consider the factum of release of all the detenues detained in different cases. Where, however, the ground case is the same in respect of several detenues, how the case of a co-detenue is considered subsequently by the Advisory Board or even the Court, is a relevant circumstance, which the State Government is required to consider at the subsequent stage of confirmation. This is not to suggest that in every case where the Advisory Board opines regarding the release of a co-detenue detained on the basis of the same ground case, all the co-detenues are to be released irrespective of other circumstances. We are stressing upon the fact that such a release is a relevant factor, which should be considered by the State Government and non-consideration of such relevant factor would vitiate the order of confirmation.” 6. We are stressing upon the fact that such a release is a relevant factor, which should be considered by the State Government and non-consideration of such relevant factor would vitiate the order of confirmation.” 6. The present habeas corpus petition filed by detenu Bhaskar came up for hearing today along with H.C.P. No. 1015 of 2011 filed by his son Ramesh. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the files relating to both the detention orders and we perused the same. 7. Insofar as the detenu Ramesh in H.C.P. No. 1015 of 2011 is concerned, the Advisory Board in its opinion dated 11.8.2011 expressed unanimous opinion that there is no sufficient cause for the detention of Ramesh. The detenu in the present case Bhaskar was also produced before the same Advisory Board on 11.8.2011 and the Advisory Board has expressed unanimous opinion that there is sufficient cause for his detention. The fact remains that the detenus in both the petitions are the accused in the ground case in Crime No. 574 of 2011 and they are on the same footing. The State Government has confirmed the order of detention of the present detenu Bhaskar on 26.9.2011. There is nothing to show that the revocation order of the co-accused Ramesh in the ground case was placed before the State Government at the time of confirmation or it was taken into consideration while confirming the detention of the present detenu Bhaskar. In such circumstances, we are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in the decision referred above. The fact that the Advisory Board had given a particular opinion for releasing the co-accused in the very same ground case is a relevant circumstance to be considered by the State Government while confirming the detention of the other accused in the ground case and non-consideration of the same would vitiate the order of confirmation. 8. The Habeas Corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 5.7.2011, made in BDFGISSV No. 36 of 2011 is set aside. The detenu Bhaskar, S/o. Ayyakannu, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.