Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER Chelliah is a friend of detenu Iyyamperumal, who has been detained as a goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 28. 7. 1993 passed by the second respondent District Magistrate and Collector of Chidambaranar District, Tuticorin, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and executed on 23. 9. 1993. ( 2 ) WE do not deem it necessary to state the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order, for on a solitary ground of vital importance, this Habeas Corpus Petition will have to be allowed. ( 3 ) THOUGH several grounds were raised challenging the impugned order, since this Habeas Corpus Petition will have to be allowed on one single ground, we are not mentioning the other grounds and offering our opinion on those grounds. ( 4 ) THE important single ground urged by Mr. P. V. Bakthavatchalam, petitioners counsel, is that in paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that he was aware that the detenu was at large. After saying so, he has again mentioned in the grounds that there was an imminent possibility that he may come out on anticipatory bail for a variety of offences mentioned by him, which includes an offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. , as well offences under Explosive Substances Act. The detaining authority has further stated that such bail, in the event of arrest, could be obtained by filing anticipatory bail application. In that context, the detaining authority has stated that if the detenu was let to remain at large, he would indulge in future prejudicial activities. The argument was that the detenu was already at large and obtaining of bail in the event of arrest, cannot alter the position and, if at all, by such an order of anticipatory bail, movements of the detenu would further stand restricted. According to petitioners counsel, this is a clear case of non-application of mind. ( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. S. Shanmughavelayutham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on this ground. He contended that anyhow the detenu was at large irrespective of an anticipatory bail application and hence the objective satisfaction arrived at, cannot be faulted. According to petitioners counsel, this is a clear case of non-application of mind. ( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. S. Shanmughavelayutham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on this ground. He contended that anyhow the detenu was at large irrespective of an anticipatory bail application and hence the objective satisfaction arrived at, cannot be faulted. ( 6 ) WE have carefully considered the rival contentions. Application of mind is the sine quo non for passing preventive orders. If the detaining authority had stated that he was aware that the detenu was at large and in view of his past conduct and the present ground crime, taken along with prognosis of future activity, there was need to detain preventively the detenu concerned, that would have been perfectly justified. But, in the present grounds of detention, unnecessarily the detaining authority has entered into the arena of possibility of the detenu getting himself released on anticipatory bail by filing an anticipatory bail application, in which event, if he was let to remain at large, he would indulge in future prejudicial activities and therefore there was compelling necessity to detain him preventively. A clear impression is created that the compelling necessity to detain, has its nexus to the preferring of an anticipatory bail application and the detenu getting himself released on bail in the event of arrest and thereby remaining at large, to facilitate commission of future prejudicial activities. This, in our opinion, has certainly affected the subjective satisfaction arrived at. There was no need to mention about the possibility of the detenu coming out on anticipatory bail, if already the detenu was at large, not having been arrested in the ground crime. Further, if the possibility of obtaining anticipatory bail had been taken note of, the conditions which were likely to be imposed on such grant of bail in the event of arrest, must also have been considered by the detaining authority, which he has not done. That again exhibits non-application of mind. On the sole ground of non-application of mind, we are constrained to allow this Habeas Corpus Petition. ( 7 ) IMPUGNED order of detention is set aside the detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise required. This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Petition allowed.