Judgment :- V. Kanagaraj, J. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the husband of the detenue Tmt. Egapathini, praying for a direction to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent dated 30.8.2003 in Order No.C2/40881/2003 whereby the said authority has detained the detenue herein as a 'bootlegger' under preventive detention invoking the provisions of Act 14/1982 on the ground that she is a threat to public order, and to direct the respondents to produce the said detenue now detained in Central Special Prison for Women at Vellore, before this court and to set her at liberty. 2. The detention order passed by the detaining authority the second respondent herein, the District Magistrate and District Collector, Villupuram, would show that the detenue is a boolegger and she has already been involved in three other cases shown as adverse cases as that of the ground case and in all the adverse cases registered against her, she got convicted and therefore, concluding that her presence in the society is a threat to public order, thus invoking the provisions of Act 14 of 1982 and as per his order dated 30.8.2003, the detenue has been detained under preventive detention, testifying the validity of which the petitioner has come forward to file the above Habeas Corpus Petition. 3. Today, when the above Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal Side appearing on behalf of the respondents, what comes to be known is that the petitioner is the husband of the detenue Egapathini and the detenue has been taken into preventive custody by the order of the second respondent dated 30.8.2003 made in C2/40881/2003 branding him as a bootlegger. 4. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in spite of the detenue having not filed any bail application prior to the passing of the above detention order, the grounds of detention speak of imminent possibility of the detenue coming out on bail, which depicts only the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and therefore, the very order of detention gets vitiated in law and would pray for setting aside the same. 5. 5. A consideration of the facts pleaded particularly the above aspect brought forth and having regard to the materials placed before us, we are of the view that the order of detention, for the above reason brought forth, gets vitiated and hence the following order: In result, 1. The above Habeas Corpus Petition succeeds and the same is allowed. 2. The order of detention dated 30.8.2003 passed by the second respondent as per his order No.C2/40881/2003 is set aside. 3. Consequently, the detenue Tmt.Egapathini is set at liberty forthwith, unless she is required in some other case or cause.