6 On a perusal of the impugned order of detention, in particular, the Grounds, we find that the Detaining Authority has stated that there was a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case as well as in the adverse cases. Admittedly, at the time of passing the Detention Order, the bail application filed in the ground case in Cr.No.1403/2017, was dismissed in Crl.MP.No.15814/2017 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, and no further bail application was filed in the said case and the bail applications filed in the adverse cases in Crl.MP.Nos.3414 and 3413/2017 before the 16th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, were pending on the date of passing of the detention order. Though the detaining authority has made reliance on similar cases in which the accused were granted bail, the facts involved in those cases are different. The principle of similarity cannot be applied mechanically. Normally, bails are granted baed on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, similar case plea, cannot be taken into consideration. Further, it has been stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file further bail application in the ground case. Whereas, in the Booklet, there is no material available to substantiate the said statement. Hence, there is no material to substantiate that there is real/imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and the said order was passed without application of mind. The same exhibits the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Therefore, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
