JUDGMENT S. Rajeswaran, J. 1. Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide proceedings in Memo No. 470/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 19-07-2013, whereby the son of the petitioner herein, viz., Sumesh, aged 28 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA". As per the grounds of detention dated 19-7-2013, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: Adverse Case : Sl. No. Name of the Police Station and Crime No. Section of law 1. T13 Kunrathur Police Station Cr. No.727/2013 147, 148, 120(b), 302 IPC Ground Case: Sl. No. Name of the Police Station and Crime No. Section of law 1. T13 Kunrathur Police Station Cr. No.730/2013 341, 294(b), 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC 2. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr. J. Saravanavel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the adverse case in Cr. No. 727/2013 and in the ground case in Cr. No. 730/2013 registered by T13 Kunrathur Police Station and the bail application filed by the detenu in the adverse case before the learned District Judge, Kanchipuram in Cri. M.P. No. 865/2013 was pending and the detenu has not filed any bail application in the ground case as on the date of the passing of the detention order. He would also contend that the detaining authority has placed reliance on the statement of the sponsoring authority to the effect that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail applications in the ground case. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the detenu has not moved any bail application in the ground case and the bail application filed in the adverse case was pending and he is in remand in the said cases. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the detenu has not moved any bail application in the ground case and the bail application filed in the adverse case was pending and he is in remand in the said cases. When no bail application is filed, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and when a bail application is pending, there is no presumption that he would come out on bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude/to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail in the ground case as well as in the 2nd adverse case and there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case and that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in the adverse case is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Cri] 539 : ( AIR 2006 SC 1462 ), (T.V. Saravanan alias S.A.R. Prasanna Chaturvedi v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary and another]; [b] 2005 [1] CTC 577 (Velmurugan alias Velu v. The Commissioner of Police); and (c) 2012 (7) SCC 181 : ( AIR 2012 SC 2002 ) (Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur). 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts and citation. 6. Before adverting to the arguments of the counsel for both sides, we would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the grounds of the detention order, viz. paragraph 4, on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner: "4. 6. Before adverting to the arguments of the counsel for both sides, we would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the grounds of the detention order, viz. paragraph 4, on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner: "4. I am aware that Thiru Sumesh is in remand in T13 Kunrathur Police Station Cr. Nos. 727/2013 and 730/2013 and he has moved bail applications for T13 Kunrathur Police Station Cr. No. 727/2013 before the Court of the District Judge at Kancheepuram vide in Cri. M.P. No. 865/2013 and the same was pending. He has not moved any bail application for T13 Kunrathur Police Station Cr. No. 730/2013 so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Sumesh is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for T13 Kunrathur Police Station Cr. No. 730/2013 before the appropriate Court. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at R7 KK Nagar Police Station Cr. No. 301/2009 u/Ss. 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC, bail was granted by the Hon'ble High Court in Cri.O.P. No. 13843/2009. It is pertinent to note that in a case registered at V5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr. No. 160/2013 u/Ss. 341, 294(b), 336,427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Court of Sessions at Chennai in Cri. M.P. No. 9883/2013. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in T13 Kunrathur Police Station Cr. No. 727/2013 and there is real possibility of his coming out on bail T13 Kunrathur Police Station Cr. No. 730/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time. If he conies out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order..." 7. As could be seen from the above ground in the order of detention, the detenu is in remand in the ground case (Cr. No. 730/2013) and in the adverse case (Cr. No. 727/2013) and he has not filed any bail application in the ground case and the bail application filed by the detenu in the adverse case in Cri. M.P. No. 865/2013 before the learned District Judge, Kancheepuram, was pending as on the date of passing of the detention order. No. 730/2013) and in the adverse case (Cr. No. 727/2013) and he has not filed any bail application in the ground case and the bail application filed by the detenu in the adverse case in Cri. M.P. No. 865/2013 before the learned District Judge, Kancheepuram, was pending as on the date of passing of the detention order. Merely stating that steps have been taken on behalf of the detenu by the relative of the detenu to file bail application in the ground case is not sufficient to pass an order of detention. Excepting recording a statement that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file bail applications, no other material are shown as to the steps taken to file bail application in the ground case. When no bail application is filed, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and when a bail application is pending, then there is no presumption that the detenu would come out on bail. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is real possibility and likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in the adverse case and in the ground case would be a mere ipse dixit and that would vitiate the order of detention and the same is indicative of total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Hence, the order of detention cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. In this connection it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. (a) In 2006 (1) MLJ (Cri.) 539 : ( AIR 2006 SC 1462 ), (T.V. Saravanan alias S.A.R. Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi v. State of Tamil Nadu Through Secretary and another), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "The Courts had rejected the bail applications moved by the appellant and there was no material whatsoever to apprehend that he was likely to move a bail application or that there was imminent possibility of the prayer for bail being granted. The "imminent possibility" of the appellant coming out on bail is mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever. The "imminent possibility" of the appellant coming out on bail is mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever. There was no cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which the detaining authority could be satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record, in the absence of such material on record, the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of detention". (b) In 2005 (1) CTC 577 (Velmurugan alias Velu v. The Commissioner of Police, it has been held as follows: "3......unless there is a clear expression by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention with reference to the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail by filing bail application, the detaining authority would not choose to pass the detention order. In order to prevent the detenu from committing the acts, which would be disturbance to public order and public health, the detaining authority shall consider the materials and on the basis of subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail or likelihood of the detenu being released on bail, the detaining authority may pass such an order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. When such an essential requirement, namely, the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, is absent, it has to be held that the order of detention is vitiated". (c) In 2012 (7) SCC 181 : ( AIR 2012 SC 2002 ), (cited supra) which reads thus: 12. In Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Govt. & Anr., (2011) 5 SCC, 244 : (AIR 2011 SC (Supp) 856), this Court while dealing with the issue held: "...... .......A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored..... In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts normally grant bail on this ground". 14..........Thus, as the detenu in the instant case has not moved the bail application and no other co-accused, if any, had been enlarged on bail, resorting to the provisions of Act was not permissible. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is based on mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law". 9. It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously across with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. 10. In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned grounds. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in Memo No. 470/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 19-7-2013 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., sumesh, S/o. Samikutti, aged 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.