Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Habeaus Corpus, calling for the records of the first respondent in D.O.14/2005-C2 dated 30.4.2005, setting aside the order of detention passed therein directing the respondents to produce the detenu by name, Subramani, brother-in-law of the petitioner, before this Court and setting him at liberty, who is now detained in Central Prison, Vellore.) P.D.Dinakaran,J. Challenge is to the order of detention dated 30.4.2005 passed by the first respondent herein, branding the detenu, the brother-in-law of the petitioner herein, as a Bootlegger, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. 2. According to the detaining authority, on 16.4.2005 at about 9.00 hours, one Kannan went to the nearby field bush, which is of eastern side of Mariyamman Koil Street, Velanandal village and finding Subramani, the detenu herein, selling I.D. arrack, paid him Rs.10/- and purchased one tumbler of I.D. arrack and consumed the same. After consuming it, he experienced vomitation two times and fell down under a tree. Two hours after regaining his consciousness, he felt burning sensation in eyes, stomach and also had chest pain. Suspecting Subramani, from whom he purchased the arrack, that he would have mixed some poisonous substance with ID arrack, as on the earlier occasion, when he consumed arrack, he had never experienced such an indisposition, he went to Tiruvannamalai Prohibition Enforcement Wing at 12.00 hours and gave a complaint, which was registered as a case in Crime No.272/2005 under Section 4(1)(i) read with 4(1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, against Subramani. He was, thereafter, referred to the hospital for treatment with a police memo. 3. Considering the above case as a ground case and also taking note of fifteen adverse cases, all cases registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, the first respondent has passed the order of detention on 30.4.2005. 4. Of course, the petitioner has not made any representation before the detaining authority objecting to the order of detention. 3. Considering the above case as a ground case and also taking note of fifteen adverse cases, all cases registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, the first respondent has passed the order of detention on 30.4.2005. 4. Of course, the petitioner has not made any representation before the detaining authority objecting to the order of detention. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice as to the non-application of mind by the detaining authority with regard to the material fact, namely, the detenu was remanded in connection with Crime No.272/2005 on the file of Tiruvannamalai Prohibition and Enforcement Wing and the detenu had also moved a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Crl.M.P.No.2687 of 2005 and the same was adjourned to 10.5.2005. In the meanwhile, when the order of detention was passed on 30.4.2005, the detaining authority had observed as follows: - 'I am also aware that there is an imminent possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another application for the above case before the same Court or Higher court ...' . (emphasis supplied) 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.2687 of 2005 on the file of Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, was still pending till 10.5.2005, there is no necessity for the detenu to file another bail application before the same Court or the higher Court. Therefore, the impugned order of detention disclosing the non-application of mind by the detaining authority is apparent on the face of record. 6. The above view of ours is also supported by the earlier orders of this Court dated 21.7.1999 rendered in P.K.MADHAVA REDDIAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-9 (H.C.P.No.1709/98), and dated 9.11.1999 rendered in OORKKAVALAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-9(H.C.P.No.801/99). 7. Hence, the impugned order of detention is vitiated on the above said ground and the same is set aside. The detenu Subramani is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. The habeas corpus petition is allowed.