JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J. 1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu, Harish Ahamed, S/o.P.K.Abdul Kadar, who has been detained, under sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short 'Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982'), read with the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.118/Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, 18.07.2012 under sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings, in No.135/BDFGISSV/2012, dated 09.10.2012 In view of the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 09.10.2012 the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai. The present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed before this Court, challenging the detention order of the second respondent, dated 09.10.2012. 2. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that there were no materials available before the Detaining Authority to arrive at such a conclusion. As such, the Detaining Authority had arrived at the conclusion, without proper application of mind. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the Detaining Authority concerned had stated, in the grounds of detention, that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, as an order had been passed, in a similar case, wherein bail had been granted. However, the relevant papers relating to the said case, stated to be similar in nature, had not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, the impugned detention order passed against the detenu is arbitrary, illegal and void, as held in Rekha Vs.State of Tamil Nadu, ( 2011 (5) SCC 244 ) and in a recent decision, in Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs. State of Manipur, reported in (2012) 3 MLJ (Crl) 794 (SC). 4. The learned counsel had pointed out that the Detaining Authority concerned had mentioned about the similar case, in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention. State of Manipur, reported in (2012) 3 MLJ (Crl) 794 (SC). 4. The learned counsel had pointed out that the Detaining Authority concerned had mentioned about the similar case, in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention. The relevant paragraph of the grounds of detention reads as follows:- “I am aware that Thiru.A.Arees Ahamed was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II (in-charge), Tirunelveli on 04.10.2012 in connection with the case in Melapalayam Police Station Crime Number 1250/2012 under Section 341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) Indian Penal Code and remanded at Central Prison, Palayamkottai on that day itself. His remand period expires on 18.10.2012. I am aware that he is in remand in connection with the case in Melapalayam Police Station Crime Number 1250/2012. He has moved for anticipatory bail in connection with the case in Melapalayam Police Station Crime Numbers 1222/2012, 1223/2012 and 1224/2012 before the Honourable Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 25.09.2012 as per Crl.O.P.Nos.14511/2012, 14509/2012 and 14513/2012 respectively and he was granted anticipatory bail in the above cases on 03.10.2012 by the Honourable Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. He has not moved any bail application in connection with the case in Melapalayam Police Station Crime Number 1250/2012. In a similar case registered in Melapalayam Police Station Crime No.572/2011 under Section 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) Indian Penal Code, bail was granted to the accused Thiru.Mariappan, S/o.Sivagnana Thevar by the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.3140/2011 on 17.08.2011. Hence, there is a real possibility of Thiru.A.Arees Hamed's coming out on bail by filing bail application in connection with the case in Melapalayam Police Station Crime Number 1250/2012 before the appropriate Court. If Thiru.A.Arees Ahamed comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru.A.Arees Ahamed is a Goonda and there is compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.” 5. On the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru.A.Arees Ahamed is a Goonda and there is compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.” 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that, in view of the fact that an order had been passed, in a similar case, granting bail, as stated by the Detaining Authority, in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 6. In the present case, from the records available before this Court, it is noted that none of the relevant papers relating to the similar case, mentioned by the Detaining Authority, had been furnished to the detenu, except a copy of the bail order said to have been passed by the Court concerned. Hence, the impugned order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority is liable to be set aside. 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusion of the Detaining Authority that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order cannot be sustained, as it is not based on all the relevant and necessary materials. Further, there has been no proper application of mind, by the Detaining Authority, before arriving at such a conclusion. As such, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the impugned detention order. Accordingly, the impugned Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, dated 09.10.2012, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus petition stands allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.