K. MOHAN RAM, J. ORDER 1. The daughter of the detenue is the petitioner. 2. The petitioner came to adverse notice of the authorities in three adverse cases and in the ground case she was arrested on 19.11.2011 and a case was registered in Cr. No. 375 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 4(1)(a) read with 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and produced her before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, who remanded her to judicial custody till 28.11.2011. 3. The sponsoring authority, by placing the necessary materials before the Detaining Authority, recommended for the detention of the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Detaining Authority, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction, that the detenu comes under the definition of ‘Bootlegger’, as contemplated under the Act 14 of 1982 and further recording the satisfaction that there is a compelling necessity to detain her in order to prevent her from indulging in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982, passed the impugned order of detention. 4. Challenging the same, the above petition has been filed by the daughter of the detenu. 5. Heard both. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the (case in Cr. No. 240 of 2011 on the file of V4 Rajamangalam Police Station is under investigation and the detenue was released on bail. Similarly, another case in Cr. No. 646 of 2011 on the file of the same police station is also under investigation and the detenus was released on bail. But, according to the learned counsel, the bail orders have not been either furnished to the detenu nor placed bftfore the detaining authority. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that even in the special report of the sponsoring authority, it is not stated thnt the detenue was granted bail in the aforesaid two cases. Therefore, according to the leerned counsel, the said statement has been made without any material and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. 8. On the aforesaid submissions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was heard and after perusing the booklet, he submitted that the bail orders in respect of Cr. Therefore, according to the leerned counsel, the said statement has been made without any material and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. 8. On the aforesaid submissions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was heard and after perusing the booklet, he submitted that the bail orders in respect of Cr. No.s 240 of 2011 and 646 of 2011 on the file of the V4 Rajamangalam Police Station have not been furnished to the detenue and in the special report the sponsoring authority has not stated about the grant of bail to the detenue in the said two cases. 9. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the materials available on record. 10. The detaining authority has stated in the grounds of detention as if the detenue was granted bail in Cr. Nos. Cr. Nos. 240 of 2011 and 646 of 2011 on the file of the V4 Rajamangalam Police Station and for making such statement, there should be some basis or material available before the detaining authority. If such materials were available before the detaining authority, the same should have been furnished to the detenue. In this case, admittedly, the materials to substantiate that bail was granted to the detenue either had not. been placed before the detaining authority or not furnished to the detenue. When the detaining authority has made such a statement in the absence of such materials, then the subjective satisfaction arrived at by him is vitiated and if really such materials had been placed before the detaining authority, then the non furnishing of the relied upon documents will definitely vitiate the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority and therefore, when admittedly no materials are available in the booklet, it amounts not only to non supply of the relied upon documents to the detenue but also no materials were placed before the detaining authority, however, in either case, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of detention is set-aside and the H.C.P. is allowed. The detenue is ordered to be released forthwith unless her custody is required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.