5.From a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken into consideration in a similar case registered at Sipcot Police Station Crime No.222/2017, u/s 379, 430, 341, 353, 307 IPC r/w Section 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 bail was granted to the accued Thiru. Vasu by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.2854/2017 on 27.07.2019 and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The similar case relied on by the authority was registered for the offences under Sections 379, 430, 341, 353, 307 IPC r/w Section 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 whereas the offences involved in the ground case are u/s 294(b), 353, 379, 430, 506 (ii), 307 IPC r/w Section 3 (3) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992 @ 294(b), 353, 379, 430, 506(ii), 307 IPC r/w Section 3(3) Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss)Act 1992 r/w Section 21(5), Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957. Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction. Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
