Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in P.D.No.15/2013, dated 03.06.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Ganesh Nagar Police StationCr.No.640/2010 Section 394 @ 379 IPC 2. Ganesh Nagar Police StationCr.No.302/2012 Sections 294(b), and 506 (ii) IPC 3. Ganesh Nagar Police StationCr.No.69/2013 Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC 4. Gandarvakkottai Police StationCr.No.87/2013 Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC 5. Thirugokarnam Police StationCr.No.154/2013 Section 392 IPC 3. The ground case alleged against the detenu is registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station in Crime No.219 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 4. Besides several grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to interfere with the order of detention, he questioned the detention order as there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, when his bail application was already dismissed and in the absence of any material to support, either in the ground case or in a similar cases, regarding the likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, the detaining authority has not arrived at any subjective satisfaction to pass the impugned order and therefore, the order is vitiated in law. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also on the above submission and perused the records. 6. The mother of the detenu has come before this Court to question the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Pudukkottai District, in P.D.O.No.15/2013, dated 03.06.2013. The detaining authority has come to the decision to detain the detenu stating that Thiru.Jerin Joseph @ Diwan, who is in remand in Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Crime No.219/2013 for offences under sections 341, 294 (b), 387, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, has filed bail applications before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukkottai, in C.M.P.No.4747/2013, which was dismissed on 21.05.2013. There is a real possibility of his (Jerin Joseph @ Diwan) coming out on bail, by filing a bail application for the above case before the appropriate Court. There is a real possibility of his (Jerin Joseph @ Diwan) coming out on bail, by filing a bail application for the above case before the appropriate Court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. Further resource to the normal criminal law will 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 the detaining authority, he was fully satisfied that the said Jerin Joseph @ Diwan is a Gooda and there is a 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 prevention of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 7. On a close scrutiny of the above order would inform that the second respondent has noticed that the detenu, who is in remand in Crime No.219 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 387, 506(ii) of IPC, has filed an application for bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukkottai, in C.M.P.No.4747 of 2013, which was dismissed on 21.05.2013 and there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application for the aforesaid case before the appropriate Court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and therefore, the detention order is made. While arriving at such a satisfaction for the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, the authority must have a material to support either in a ground case or any of the steps taken by the detenu or his relatives to move the appropriate Court for bail or the real possibility would have been arrived with similar cases, in detaining the detenu. The point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have a substantial legal ground to interfere with the order of the detention. 8. The point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have a substantial legal ground to interfere with the order of the detention. 8. On verification of the entire records, there is no material to support the detaining authority to come to the decision as there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and further indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and such a decision arrived at, is hit by the total non application of mind and also without subjective satisfaction. For the above said grounds, the impugned order is vitiated in law. 9. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, Jerin Joseph @ Diwan, aged 25 years, S/o. John Bosco, made in P.D.O.No.15/2013 dated 03.06.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. However, it is made clear that the present order shall not give any advantage to the detenu in any of the regular proceedings.