JUDGMENT : Rajiv Shakdher, J. 1. The petition is directed against the detention order dated 22.08.2017. A perusal of the detention order would show that, there are six (6) adverse cases noticed qua the detenue/Thiru Ravindran @ Suban @ Ravichandran, son of Sekar, Male, aged 30 years. In respect of all the six adverse cases the detenue/Thiru. Ravindran @ Suban @Ravichandran has been booked under various provisions of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, 1937. 2. Insofar as the subject case is concerned, which is registered as Crime No.158 of 2017, the detenue/Thiru. Ravindran @ Suban @ Ravichandran has been booked under sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A)(ii) of Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, 1937, read with Section 328 of the IPC. The record shows that the detenue/Thiru. Ravindran @ Suban @Ravichandran was arrested on 17.07.2017, in six (6) adverse cases, as well as the subject case, to which we have made reference above. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the impugned order cannot be sustained for various reasons, which includes the delay in passing the impugned order; the contraband seized not being deposited with the Court in time; and the fact that the bail application filed was pending for adjudication, on the date when the impugned order has been passed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relies upon the impugned order as well as the record to resist the petition. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents. We have also perused the record of the case. 6. We are of the view that the impugned order cannot sustained for the following reasons: (i) The detenue/Thiru. Ravindran @ Suban @Ravichandran was arrested in all six (6) adverse cases, as well as the subject case, on 17.07.2017. The impugned Order, on the other hand, was passed on 22.08.2017. In this petition, notice was issued on 06.11.2017. Despite which, the State has not filed counter affidavit. Thus, the delay in passing the impugned Order remains unexplained. (ii) As correctly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the contraband was seized on 17.07.2017, it was received by the concerned Magistrate only on 01.08.2017. The contraband was sent for forensic analysis only thereafter, i.e., on 07.08.2017. The delay has without doubt prejudiced the cause of the detenue/Thiru. Ravindran @ Suban @Ravichandran. (ii) As correctly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the contraband was seized on 17.07.2017, it was received by the concerned Magistrate only on 01.08.2017. The contraband was sent for forensic analysis only thereafter, i.e., on 07.08.2017. The delay has without doubt prejudiced the cause of the detenue/Thiru. Ravindran @ Suban @Ravichandran. (iii) As correctly argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, a perusal of the paragraph 5 of the impugned order, would show that in the adverse cases as well as in the subject case, bail petitions filed by the detenue/Thiru. Ravindran @ Suban @ Ravichandran were pending on the date when the detention order was passed. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the detaining authority, that there is every likelihood of the detenue/Thiru. Ravindran @ Suban @Ravichandran being enlarged on bail, merely, on the ground that in similar case bail was granted, according to us, is a flawed conclusion. 7. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to quash the detention order. 8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.C3/D.O.No.87/2017 dated 22.08.2017, passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely,/Thiru. Ravindran @ Suban @Ravichandran, male, aged 30 years, son of Mr.Sekar, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with another case. Given the nature of the case, this order will be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent by the Registrar General of this Court via Fax.