CASES REFERRED 1. Anjalammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 MLJ (Crl.) 829 5 Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The detenu himself has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the order of preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 on the ground that he is a Goonda. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions. But, it is not necessary for us to deal with all such contentions, as, in our opinion, the contention relating to non-application of mind by the detaining authority to the fact that the detenu had been remanded in connection with two different crimes has vitiated the order of detention. 4. From the grounds of detention, it is apparent that the detenu was arrested in connection with Crime No.1329/2005 and was remanded on 12.6.2005. On the basis of statement made by the detenu himself, the investigating authority came to know that the petitioner was also involved in Crime No. 2270/2004 which is also a case under Section 397, I.P.C. The detenu was remanded in connection with the said case on 21.6.2005. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has recorded his satisfaction to the effect that bail application had been filed in Mathiciyam Police Station Crime No. 1329/2005 and there was an imminent possibility of being released on bail. However, no satisfaction is recorded, anywhere that the petitioner was also likely to be released in Crime No. 2270/2004, which is also an offence under Section 397, I.P.C. 5. A specific contention has been raised by the petitioner regarding such non-application of mind in ground No. (c) to the effect that the detaining authority has not considered the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the second adverse case, which is also a serious crime registered under Section 397, I.P.C. In reply to such contention, in the counter affidavit, it is has been indicated that the detaining authority has recorded that the detenu was likely to be released in connection with crime No. 1329/2005 and there was no non-application of mind in not considering the possibility of coming out on bail in other cases. 6. In our opinion, such stand taken in the counter affidavit cannot be accepted. 6. In our opinion, such stand taken in the counter affidavit cannot be accepted. Even assuming that the detenu would have been released in connection with crime No.1399/2005, he could not have come out on bail as remand was also in respect of another case, namely Crime No.2270/2004 and unless bail order would have been passed in such case, the detenu would have continued to remain inside the jail. Therefore, non consideration of this aspect has obviously vitiated the order of detention. The aforesaid conclusion is supported by a Division Bench decision of this Court to which one of us (P.K. Misra, J.) was a party Anjalammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 MLJ (Crl.) 829. 7. In such view of the matter, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.35/BDFGISV/2005, dated 28.06.2005, passed by the first respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.