The detention order based on the apprehension of imminent release on bail must be supported by cogent material and cannot solely rely on the ipse dixit of the detaining authority.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard counsel for the parties.

3. One of the grounds urged in this appeal is that the detaining authority apprehending the imminent possibility of release of the detenu considered it necessary to detain him under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982). It is not disputed before us that the bail petitions filed on behalf of the detenu in those cases had been rejected and in fact no bail application was pending on the date on which the detention order was passed. However, the detaining authority in the grounds of detention stated that, "I am aware that Mr Athikesavan is in remand in Central Crime Branch 'X' Crime Nos. 315 of 2005 and 328 of 2005 and has moved a bail application before the 3rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George town, Chennai, in Crl. MP No. 140 of 2005 and the same was dismissed. I am also aware that there is imminent possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application for the above cases before the Principal Sessions Court or the Hon'ble High Court since in similar cases bail orders are granted by the Sessions Court or the High Court after a lapse of time."

4. In similar circumstances, this Court in r.v. Saravanan v. State) directed release of the detenu. Counsel for the State is unable to distinguish that judgment. This Court in TV. Saravanan' has held that the "imminent possibility" of the appellant coming out on bail is merely the 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.

5. Applying the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid, judgment, we allow this appeal and quash the order of detention. The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.