Judgment : The second respondent, by his order dated 25.05.2005, ordered detention of the petitioners husband, by name Ismail, branding him a goonda, which is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged only one point to vitiate the order of detention, namely, the detaining authority has not applied his mind while passing the detention order and in support of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner took pain to take us through the adverse cases as well as the ground case and the circumstances under which the cases came to be registered and whether the name of the petitioner was shown as an accused in the two adverse cases, etc. 3. Thefirst adverse case was registered on 09.05.2005 in Crime No.284/2005 for the alleged offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, in which, admittedly, the detenu, by name, Ismail has not been shown as an accused. It is also an admitted position that nothing has been recovered from Ismail in Crime No. 284/2005. Therefore, the fact that a case has been registered as if the detenu is also involved in Crime No. 284/2005 cannot take us to the conclusion that his act would have caused prejudice to the public order, disturbing the tempo of the day to day life of the public. 4. The second adverse case came to be registered on 11.04.2005 at about 21.30 hours in Crime No. 359/2005 for the alleged offence under Section 395 read with 397 of the Indian Penal Code. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Crime No. 359/2005, Albert and Palani have been shown as ‘absconding accused” in col. 7 of the first information report and the name of this detenu, Ismail does not find a place there. In the body of the first information report, there is some reference to his name. Undoubtedly, the averments found therein do not indicate that Ismail involved in any offence or he has committed an act caused public disturbance, etc. Because of this reason alone, it appears to our mind that the second case also cannot be taken as an adverse case as far as this detenu is concerned. 5. The complainant in Crime No. 362/2005 went in search of the absconding accused in Crime No. 359/2005 on 11.05.2005. Because of this reason alone, it appears to our mind that the second case also cannot be taken as an adverse case as far as this detenu is concerned. 5. The complainant in Crime No. 362/2005 went in search of the absconding accused in Crime No. 359/2005 on 11.05.2005. It is the case of the complainant in that crime that Albert, Palani, Ismail, Peter and Charles were available at the junction of K.K. Street and Thambu Chetty Street and when the complainant rushed there, on noticing the police party, they tried to escape from the spot. It is also further alleged that Palani took out a cool drink bottle from a nearby betel nut shop and hurled the same against the police party. Then, it is further averred that Albert, Palani and others took up stones from the road side and pelted the same against the police party, thereby causing disturbances to the public order and public peace. As far as the detenu is concerned, there is no specific overt act implicating him that his act would have caused any disturbance to public order. At a later point, it is stated that when the crowd gathered at the spot, Albert, Palani, Ismail, Peter and Charles threatened every one at the spot and nothing more. Assuming that after the incident, as averred, Ismail threatened, that alone will not lead to the inference that his act had caused public disturbance. In this view of the matter, the allegations avail able in the first information report in Crime No. 362/2005 also fail to attract the ingredients required for a detention under Act 14 of 1982. 6. Thelearned Government Advocate would submit that from Ismail, a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- was recovered on the next day, on the basis of confession statement given by him. This would indicate that the detenu is also involved in Crime No. 362/2005. Assuming that there was a recovery, we fail to understand as to how the recovery of the amount alone from the detenu would take us to the conclusion that his act had caused any disturbance to the public peace or public order affecting the tempo of day to day life of the public. Assuming that there was a recovery, we fail to understand as to how the recovery of the amount alone from the detenu would take us to the conclusion that his act had caused any disturbance to the public peace or public order affecting the tempo of day to day life of the public. As adverted to above, the role said to have been played by Ismail, when the complainant in crime No. 362 0f 2005 apprehended to arrest the accused in Crime No. 359 of 2005, failed to establish the fact that there was public disturbance. 7. From the above facts, it is clear that the act said to have been committed by the detenu did not cause any disturbance to the public order. But, unfortunately, the detaining authority has not applied his mind and considered all the above points. In the order, he has presumed as if in all the adverse cases this detenu is involved as well as the act of this detenu would amount to public disturbance, and has passed the detention order, which would suggest that he has not properly applied his mind while passing the detention order, which is very essential for its sustenance. 8. For the above said reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the detention order is vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the order detention is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.