ORDER : P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J. The petitioner is the detenu. He was detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.22/2015, dated 17.10.2015, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in Crime No.263 of 2015 on the file of Soolakarai Police Station registered for an alleged offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and also the following adverse case:- “Crime No.297 of 2015 registered on the file of Virudhunagar District, Ambathur Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 109 IPC & 4 of TNPHW Act.” 2. The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfaction that the detenu conformed to the definition of the "Goonda" and that his presence at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and also expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that the detenu would come out on bail in the ground case as well as in the adverse case, passed the impugned detention order. The said order is challenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 3. Though the detention order is sought to be assailed on several grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the contention that both in the ground case as well as in the adverse case, no bail application was filed, but still the detaining authority expressed subjective satisfaction that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case as well as adverse case, based on the bail order granted to some other person in a similar case. 4. In elaboration of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subjective satisfaction regarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in a case, wherein no bail application is pending, cannot be based on any other case in respect of other persons and that the very fact that no bail application is pending will negative the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, subject to an exception that a co-accused in the very same case placed under similar circumstances has been released on bail. 5. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgment of a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court consisting of three Hon'ble Judges in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 , followed by and clarified in Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs. State of Manipur and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 181 , which has also been followed by this Court in an unreported decision in H.C.P(MD).No.1567 of 2015 [Sri Devi Vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department and others], vide order dated 14.12.2015. 6. The submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in reply to the above said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also heard. 7. In paragraph No.7 of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority, expressing his subjective satisfaction regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, made the following observation: ""7. I am aware that Murugan, have been remanded to Judicial custody upto 20.10.2015 and lodged in Central Prison, Madurai in connection with Crime No.297/15 of Amathur Police Station and in Crime No.263/15 of Soolakkarai Police Station. The adverse case was registered against the accused in Cr.No.297/15 u/s.147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 109 IPC and 4 of TNPHW Act. In this case, the accused did not filed bail petition. But in a similar case in Crime No.33/14 u/s.147, 148, 341, 323, 307 @ 147, 148, 341, 323, 302 IPC registered against the accused Karathamalai at Kariapatty Police Station, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court, Madurai has granted bail to the accused vide Crl.OP(MD).No.21506/14 Dated 02.12.2014. And also in a similar case in crime No.269/15 u/s. 341, 294(b), 323 IPC and 379(NP) r/w 4 of TNPHW Act, registered against the accused Prabhakaran and two others at Soolakkarai Police Station, the Judicial Magistrate II Court, Virudhunagar has granted bail to the accused vide Cr.MP.8052/15 Dated 29.09.2015. The ground case was registered against the accused in Cr.No.263/15 u/s.392 IPC. In this case, the accused did not file bail petition. But in a similar case in Cr.No.236/13 u/s.392 IPC registered against the accused Mahalingam, at Mallanginar Police Station, the Judicial Magistrate I Court, Virudhunagar has granted bail to the accused vide Cr.MP 6284/13 dated 21.10.2013. The ground case was registered against the accused in Cr.No.263/15 u/s.392 IPC. In this case, the accused did not file bail petition. But in a similar case in Cr.No.236/13 u/s.392 IPC registered against the accused Mahalingam, at Mallanginar Police Station, the Judicial Magistrate I Court, Virudhunagar has granted bail to the accused vide Cr.MP 6284/13 dated 21.10.2013. Hence, I infer that there is a Real Possibility of his (Murugan) coming out on bail in the above adverse case and in the ground case, by filing bail petition before the concerned court or in the higher court, since bails are granted by the court in such cases ". 8. The Detaining Authority referred to the fact that no bail application was pending both in the ground case as well as adverse case, namely, Crime No.263 of 2015 registered on the file of Soolakarai Police Station and Crime Nos. 297 /2015 registered on the file of Virudhunagar District, Amathur Police Station. However, the Detaining Authority proceeded further to express a subjective satisfaction that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application, since in a similar case, not being a case of a co-accused in the very same case, another person was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate I Court, Virudhunagar. Such a comparison of bail order passed in another case, when no bail application is pending, to express subjective satisfaction of the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is against the dictum laid down by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 , followed by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs. State of Manipur and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 181 and by this Court in an unreported decision in H.C.P(MD).No.1567 of 2015 [Sri Devi Vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department and others], vide order dated 14.12.2015. Hence, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Order of Detention is vitiated on the said ground alone. 9. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department and others], vide order dated 14.12.2015. Hence, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Order of Detention is vitiated on the said ground alone. 9. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and this Court sets aside the Order of Detention dated 17.10.2015, made in Cr.M.P.No.22/2015, (Goonda) passed by the second respondent, the District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar District and directs the release of the detenu, by name Murugan, Son of Muthu, aged about 47 years detained in Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith, if his continued custody is not authorised in specific cases or by any other detention order.