ORDER

Rajiv Shakdher, J.—This is a petition filed against the detention order dated 26.08.2017.

2. As against the detenue, three (3) adverse cases are noted. These being : Crime No.213 of 2017; 233 of 2017; and 244 of 2017. It is pertinent to note that the detenue in the adverse cases is booked under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506(i) read with 34 of the IPC. In addition, the detenue is also charged under Section 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 (in short 2003 Act).

2.1. In so far as subject case is concerned, that has been registered as Crime No.277 of 2017. In respect of this case, where, the detenue has been booked under the similar provisions, to which we have made a reference above.

2.2. The record shows that the detenue was arrested on 25.07.2017. This position has been affirmed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order of detention on the following grounds:

(i) That the bail petitions preferred by the detenue, even according to the detaining authority, were pending on the date, when, the impugned order was passed.

(ii) That even though, there is a reference in the impugned order that the detenue was in custody, there is no reference to the order extending the remand.

(iii) A perusal of the arrest memo would show that no intimation was given to the relatives of the detenue and that the intimation, instead, was given to the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relies upon the detention order and the record to resist the petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the record as well.

6. According to us, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained for various reasons:

(i) First, a perusal of paragraph 4 of the impugned order would show that bail applications moved by the detenue in Crime No.213 of 2017; 233 of 2017; 244 of 2017 and 277 of 2017 were, even according to the detaining authority, dismissed on various dates. Furthermore, a perusal of the very same paragraph of the impugned order would show that another attempt, perhaps, was made by the detenue to obtain by filing bail applications in Crime No.213 of 2017; 233 of 2017 and 244 of 2017. These bail applications were also dismissed by the Court concerned. In so far as this Court was concerned, the detenue moved bail applications in Crime No.213 of 2017; 233 of 2017 and 244 of 2017. The impugned order, clearly, states that these bail applications were pending on the date, when, the impugned order was passed.

(i)(a) The detaining authority, however, based on the aforesaid circumstances and on account of the fact that bail was granted in a similar case, i.e., Crl.M.P.No.4817 of 2017, has entertained an apprehension that the detenue will be enlarged on bail.

(i)(b) While, there is a reference to the bail application, i.e., Crl.M.P.No.4817 of 2017, the date of the order is not given.

(i)(c) According to us, the basis adopted by the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that there was a likelihood of the detenue being enlarged on bail is completely flawed.

(i)(d) As indicated above, repeated bail applications filed by the detenue were rejected by the Courts below. In so far as this Court is concerned, concededly, on the date, when the impugned order was passed, the bail applications filed were pending. [See Arunachalam V. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, 2007-2-L.W.(Crl.) 843].

(i)(e) Moreover, the fact that in a similar case bail was granted also cannot form the basis for the detaining authority to entertain the apprehension that the detenue would be enlarged on bail. This is especially so, as a closer perusal of paragraph 4 would show that the provisions of law, under which the detenue is booked, are not identical to the other case, which is treated by the detaining authori