- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard parties.
(3.) This Appeal is against an Order dated 22nd March, 2000. By this Order a detention Order dated 15th May, 1999 has been quashed on the following reasoning: "2. The ground case which forms the immediate basis for passing the order of detention is said to have taken place on 4-5-1999 at 9.15 p.m. The detenu was found committing the offence punishable under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and the offence is registered in Crime No. 834/99 on the file of the Prohibition and Enforcement Wing. Thuckkalay. There are totally 11 adverse cases the last of which is stated to have taken place at 05.00 a.m. on 4-5-1999, for which offences under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act came to be registered in Crime No. 383/99 on the file of the Thiruvattar Police Station. The first information report regarding to that case in the last adverse case referred to above is found at page 115 of the booklet and it shows that the accused/detenu was arrested. Page 121 of the booklet contains the general diary for the last adverse case and it shows that the arrested accused was sent for remand. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if he was in remand pursuant to this arrest at 5.00 a.m. on 4-5-1999, in the last adverse case, then there must be material in the form of Court orders to show that the arrested accused was released on bail on being produced before the Court for remand. But there is no material at all to show that the arrested accused in the adverse case was released on Bail. Though it may be a bailable offence, yet there must be record to show that the arrested accused in the last adverse case was let on bail, which facilitated him to commit the offence in the ground case on the same day. The detaining authority, in the absence of materials showing that the arrested accused in the last adverse case was released on bail, ought to have applied his mind to that aspect and asked for a clarification from the sponsoring authority as to the circumstance under which the accused in the ground case was found involving himself in the later part of the same day. Since he had not done it, there is a clear non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, which vitiates the order of detention.;