Judgment :- Order of the Court was made by T.V. MASILAMANI,J.) This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu questioning the order of detention passed by the first respondent-District Magistrate and District Collector, Cuddalore dated 6.9.2003 by virtue of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootlegger, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with G.O.Ms.No.138 Prohibition and Excise Department dated 18.7.2003 issued under Section 3(2) of the Act treating the detenu as a BOOTLEGGER. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents and perused the records of the case. 3. Though the petitioner has raised various grounds questioning the order of detention, one of the main grounds is that even though the detenu is shown to have been arrested for the commission of the offence in the adverse case Nos.4 and 5, the detaining authority observed in his order that the detenu was absconding (vide) F.I.R at pages 22 to 24 while the said adverse cases were filed against him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the detaining authority has not applied his mind by appreciating the fact whether the detenu was remanded to judicial custody in the adverse cases or whether he was absconding till he was remanded to judicial custody on 19.9.2003 in the ground case. 4. Similarly, it is argued that since the bail application filed by him before the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore was dismissed on 3.9.2003 in Crl.M.P.No.6469 of 2003, there could not be any imminent possibility on the part of the detenu coming out on bail in future. Reliance is placed on the decisions, AMRITLAL v. UNION GOVERNMENT (2001 S.C.C. (CRI) 147) and RAJESH GULATI v. GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI (2002 S.C.C. (CRI) 1627) in support of the argument of the petitioner's counsel that there was no imminent possibility that the detenu could come out on bail and therefore it is urged that the detaining authority has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order. 5. 5. Similarly, the records of the case disclose that the confession statement of the detenu recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police between 13.05 hours and 13.20 hours on 24.8.2003 would reveal that the samples of I.D. arrack had been taken in a sealed bottle under cover of mahazar and he was brought to the police station at 14.30 hours and a crime was registered against him. Regarding the destruction of the remaining quantity of 69 litres of I.D. arrack, gunny bag and the lorry tube by the Inspector of Police, there were discrepant versions given by the investigating agency. While the seizure mahazar contains an averment that the remaining quantity of I.D. arrack was destroyed with the permission of the higher officials even at 13.00 hours at the time of preparing the mahazar (vide) page 38 and 39 of the typed set of papers, the remand report at page 48 of the same discloses that the remaining quantity of the contraband was taken to the police station and destroyed at 14.30 hours opposite to the police station. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the discrepancies referred supra and urged that the detaining authority has not applied his mind in evaluating the records produced to him at the time of passing the impugned order. A careful perusal of the said records would reveal clearly that such contention is acceptable in entirety. Hence, we are of the view that the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.