(ii) Second, a perusal of paragraph No.5 of the impugned order would show that the detenu had not moved any bail petitions in Crime No.480 of 2017 and Crime No.293 of 2017, on the date when the impugned order was passed. The Detaining Authority, however, appears to have entertained an apprehension that the detenu could be enlarged on bail based on an erroneous reason, which was, that the relatives of the detenu were intending to move bail applications. This conclusion is sought to be supported by relying upon a similar case, in which accused had been granted bail. According to us, the conclusion reached by the Detaining Authority, based on the aforesaid parameter, is flawed. Clearly, the detenu had not moved for bail in Crime No.480 of 2017 and Crime No.293 of 2017, on the date, when the impugned order was passed. The fact that the relatives of the detenu were intending to move for bail and that in a similar case bail was granted could not have been taken as the reason for coming to a conclusion that there was a likelihood of the detenu being released on bail.
