JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2ndrespondent passed in S.C.No.28/2013, dated 16.12.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. A.Pallipatti Police Station Crime No.292/2013 392 IPC 2. A.Pallipatti Police Station Crime No.326/2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 25.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, A.Pallipatti Police Station in Crime No.336/2013 for offence under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the present petition has been filed. 3. Amidst several grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to attack the impugned order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that though the detaining authority has observed that the bail petition filed by the detenu in the ground case has been dismissed and he has not filed another bail petition for the said case, he inferred that the detenu may come out on bail in the ground case. There is nothing to show that such material was placed before the detaining authority at the time of clamping the order of detention and therefore, subjective satisfaction expressed by the detaining authority is vitiated. 4. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents on the above said submission. 5. For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relevant averments in para 5 of the grounds of detention are extracted below: "5.I am aware that Thiru.Vadivel has filed a bail petition in connection with A.Pallipatty Police Station Cr.No.336/2013 before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate Court, Pappireddipatty in CMP No.6024/2013 and the same was dismissed on 12.12.2013. In a similar case registered against one Thiru.Duraisamy, age, 37 son of Rathinasabapathi, No.49 Arasamara Pillayar Koil Street, Chinnakadai Veethi, Salem, in Salem Town Crime Police Station Cr.No.246/2012 under Section 341, 392 read with 397, 427 and 506(ii) Indian Penal Code bail was granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Crl.O.P.No.25955/2012, dated 19.11.2012. Hence I infer it is very likely of his (Thiru Vadivel) coming out on bail in the above case since bails are granted by the courts in such cases....." 6. Hence I infer it is very likely of his (Thiru Vadivel) coming out on bail in the above case since bails are granted by the courts in such cases....." 6. The detaining authority, in para 5 of the grounds of detention, while considering the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the cases in which he was on remand, has referred to the remand of the detenu in the adverse cases and the ground case and proceeded further to observe that the bail petition filed by the detenu in the ground case came to be dismissed. The detaining authority has not mentioned whether another bail petition has been moved by the detenu or his relatives in respect of the ground case. Moreover, there is no special report annexed in the booklet furnished to the detenu. Therefore, there is no material to show that another bail petition has been moved by the detenu or his relatives in the ground case. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not supported by material and it vitiates the order of detention. On this ground alone, the order of detention is vitiated and liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely Vadivel, S/o.Venkattan, made in S.C. No.28/2013, dated 16.12.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.