ORDER : P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu -Aruldhas, S/o.Ponnumuthu, aged about 43 years. The detenu has been detained by the third respondent by his order in P.D.No.38/2015, dated 30.09.2015, holding him to be a "Black Marketeer", as defined under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 [Central Act No.7 of 1980], taking note of the ground case in Crime No.145 of 2015 on the file of Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Kuzhithurai Unit registered for an offence punishable under Section 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution of Card System) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfaction that the detenu conformed to the definition of the "Black Marketeer" and that his presence at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of the commodities essential to the community and also expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that the detenu would come out on bail in the ground 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 when no bail application is pending, the subjective satisfaction regarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail should be negatived and no bail order passed in any other case can be cited as a similar case particular to express subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case. The only exception to the general rule is that the case of a co-accused, who has been released on bail in the very same case, can be cited as a similar case particular to express subjective satisfaction regarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in that case. Only in cases where bail applications are pending, the Detaining Authority can refer to a bail order in respect of any other case, provided such case is similar to the case, in which, the detenu is in remand. Only in cases where bail applications are pending, the Detaining Authority can refer to a bail order in respect of any other case, provided such case is similar to the case, in which, the detenu is in remand. As against the said principle, the Detaining Authority has referred to a bail order made in respect of a third person, by name Rajesh in respect of Crime No.50 of 2015 on the file of Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Kuzhithurai Unit at Nagercoil to express subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in Crime No.145 of 2015, in which case the bail application filed by the detenu in Crl.M.P.No.5471 of 2015 came to be dismissed on 25.09.2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil and no further bail application came to be filed on behalf of the detenu in the said case till the order of detention came to be passed. Hence, the subjective satisfaction expressed by the Detaining Authority has to be termed as ipse dixit not based on cogent materials. 4. 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. 5. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following precedents: (i) M.Venugopal v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2013(4) MLJ (Crl) 257; and (ii) Senthoorpandi v. Secretary to the Government reported in 2014(4) MLJ (Crl) 513. 6. In addition, this Court also notices in support of the above said contention 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. 7. In paragraph No.5 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: "5. I am aware that Thiru.Aruldhas was arrested on 22.09.2015 at 04.00 hrs. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department and others], vide order dated 14.12.2015. 7. In paragraph No.5 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: "5. I am aware that Thiru.Aruldhas was arrested on 22.09.2015 at 04.00 hrs. near Padanthalumoodu Check Post and duly produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.III Nagercoil on 22.09.2015 at 6.00 P.M. in Cr.No. 145/2015 u/s. 6(4) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution of Card System) Order 1982 r/w 7(1) a (ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 on the same day at 6.00 P.M. and remanded up to 06.10.2015 and lodged at District Jail, Nagercoil as remanded prisoner. I am also aware that the bail application filed by Thiru. Jayasekar in Crl.M.P.No.5471/2015 on 22.09.2015 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Nagercoil, was dismissed on 25.09.2015. In a similar case registered in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Kuzhithurai Unit at Nagercoil in Cr.No. 50/2015 u/s. 6(4) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution of Card System) Order 1982 r/w 7(1) a (ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955, the accused Thiru. Rajesh was released on condition bail on 17.04.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1720/2015 dated 17.04.2015 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Nagercoil. (The copy of the order in Crl.M.P.No.1720/2015 dated 17.04.2015 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Nagercoil is enclosed with the typed set of papers.) Hence I infer that bail is granted by the courts in such cases, there is real possibility that he may come out on bail in future by filing bail application on his behalf either in the lower court or in the higher court.” 8. The Detaining Authority referred to the fact that the bail application filed in the ground case was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil, vide Crl.M.P.No.5471 of 2015, on 25.09.2015 and thereafter, no bail application was filed in the ground case, namely, Crime No.145/2015 registered on the file of Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Kuzhithurai Unit at Nagercoil. The Detaining Authority referred to the fact that the bail application filed in the ground case was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil, vide Crl.M.P.No.5471 of 2015, on 25.09.2015 and thereafter, no bail application was filed in the ground case, namely, Crime No.145/2015 registered on the file of Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Kuzhithurai Unit at Nagercoil. 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 No.III, Nagercoil. 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. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and this Court sets aside the order of detention dated 30.09.2015, made in P.D.No.38/2015, by the third respondent, the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil and directs the release of the detenu by name Aruldhas, S/o.Ponnumuthu, aged about 43 years forthwith, if his continued custody is not authorised in specific cases or by any other detention order.