SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.

Vide the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.08.2016 whereby the detenu has been detained in prison by the second respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and consequently the second respondent be directed to release the detenu forthwith.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that while passing the detention order, the second respondent has taken into consideration 6 crimes, which are mentioned in detention order dated 27.08.2016 and in the grounds of detention. The detenu was taken into custody on 10.07.2016

3. He further submits that in first 4 cases, bail has already been granted by the concerned Court. However, the detenu has not furnished the surety. Therefore, there is no likelihood of releasing the detenu from the judicial custody. He further submits that in 5th case i.e., in Crime No. 181 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC read with 34 of IPC registered at Ramgopalapeta Police station, Hyderabad, the detenu has moved a bail application, however, till date, no order has been passed in the said application. Moreover, in 6th case i.e., in Crime No. 206 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, registered at Bahadurpura Police Station, Hyderabad, the detenu has not even moved a bail petition. Therefore, there was no imminent possibility of the detenu to come out from the judicial custody. Thus, there was no ground before the second respondent to detain the detenu by passing order dated 27.08.2016

4. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in Sayed Abulala v. Union of India (2007) 15 SCC 208, whereby the Honble Supreme Court held that proper application of mind on the part of the detaining authority must, therefore, be borne out from the order of detention. In cases where the detenu is in custody, the detaining authority not only should be aware of the said fact but there should be some material on record to justify that he may be released on bail having regard to the restriction imposed on the power of the court as it may not arrive at the conclusion that there existed reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of such offence and that the detenu could not indulge in similar activity, if set a liberty. It is further held that the detaining authority furthermore is required to bear in mind that there exists a distinction between the likelihood of his moving an application for bail and likelihood to be released on bail. While arriving at his subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail, recording of the satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority that merely because an application for grant of bail had been filed, would not be enough.

5. Learned counsel further relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court decided in W.P No. 23400 of 2015 dated 21.12.2015, whereby held that the inference, of imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, should be drawn from the material available 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. Before passing a detention order, in respect of the person, who is in jail, the concerned authority must reach the satisfaction on the basis of cogent material, that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and further, if released on bail, the material on record reveals that he will indulge in prejudicial activities necessitating his preventive detention.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the detaining authority has referred 6 cases, however in 4 cases, the bail order has been passed by the concerned Court, however the detenu has not furnished the surety. Therefore, there is no likelihood of detenu being released. In 6th case