Judgment :- P.Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who was detained as "Goonda" under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 30-7-2004, challenges the same in this petition. 2. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the fact that at the time of the detention order, the petitioner was a remand prisoner and no application for bail was filed. He also submits that in the absence of any application for bail, the imminent possibility of coming out on bail does not arise. Hence, the detaining authority has not considered this vital aspect. In order to appreciate the said contention, it is useful to refer the following statement of fact made in para 5 (ii) of the grounds of detention: "5(ii) I am aware that Thiru Ravi alias Ravirajan has been remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur on 10-07-2004. He was ordered to be remanded up to 23-07-2004. He is now lodged in Central Prison, Chennai as a remand prisoner. His remand period has been extended upto 06-08-2004. He has not filed any bail application so far. But there is a possibility of him filing a bail application and being enlarged on bail by the criminal court..." It is clear from the above that the petitioner, namely, detenu had been in judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur on 10-07-2004 and subsequently remanded upto 23-07-2004 and lodged in Central Prison, Chennai as a remand prisoner. Thereafter, his remand had been extended upto 6-8-2004. It also shows that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu has not filed any bail application till the date of passing of the detention order. In such a circumstance, as held by this Court as well as the Apex Court in many number of cases that if there is no "imminent possibility" or likely hood of filing bail application or if bail application was filed, there is no imminent possibility or likelihood of coming out on bail, the detention order passed by the detaining authority cannot be sustained. In other words, the detaining authority has not taken note of the real urgency which necessitated to detain him (detenu) under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. In other words, the detaining authority has not taken note of the real urgency which necessitated to detain him (detenu) under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. In view of this infirmity in arriving at a subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention, this Court has no other option except to interfere with the order of detention. 3. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of detention dated 30-7-2004 is set aside. Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu-Ravi @ Ravirajan is directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required for any other cause.