Judgment : M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. By the order, dated 9.9.2004, the detenu has been detained by branding him as ‘Bootlegger’. Mr. Sathish Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the order of detention would suffer from grave illegality on the ground that there is no mention about the awareness of the detaining authority that on the date of detention order, the detenu was in remand. 2. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on this aspect. On going through the grounds of detention, it is clear that the detaining authority would only mention that the remand period was extended on 13.8.2004 and 27.8.2004. There is no material referred to by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention that by the order of extension, dated 27.8.2004, the detenu has been remanded upto 9.9.2004, the date on which the detention order was passed. Curiously, the remand order, dated 13.8.2004, has been placed before the detaining authority. Admittedly, the remand order dated 27.8.2004 was not placed. Resultantly, the remand order, dated 27.8.2004, has not been furnished to the detenu. This would make it clear that without considering the relevant materials, including the remand order relating to the date 9.9.2004, the detention order has been passed mechanically. This would reflect the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. This, in our view, would vitiate the detention order. 3. Accordingly, the Detention Order, dated 9.9.2004, passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.6 of 2004, is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required for some other case.