Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. The detenu by name V.Srinivasan @ Sami @ Elumalai, who was detained by the impugned detention order, dated 24.5.2004, passed under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), challenges the same in this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for R-1 and R-3 and learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for R-2. 3. Though several contentions have been raised questioning the impugned order of detention, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner at the foremost contended that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. 4. While elaborating the said contention, learned counsel has brought to our notice that though the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu has filed a bail petition on 17.05.2004 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, in paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has proceeded, ignoring the fact of pendency of the bail petition dated 17.5.2004, and observed that the detenu is entitled to file a bail petition and that there is likelihood of he being released on bail or statutory bail. As rightly pointed out, a perusal of the averments made in Paragraph No.1(xxxiv) of the grounds of detention clearly shows the pendency of bail petition dated 17.5.2004 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Namakkal. It is not in dispute that the detention order was passed on 24.05.2004. However, in paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that since the detenu was a remand prisoner and his judicial remand is only for the period specified in law, he is entitled to file a bail petition and there is likelihood of he being released on bail or statutory bail. As rightly pointed out, the said conclusion is contrary to the statement made in the earlier paragraph, viz., paragraph No.1(xxxiv) of the grounds of detention, and this material aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by the Detaining Authority while arriving at the subjective satisfaction. 5. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice a decision rendered by us in HCP No.1053 of 2004, dated 14.3.2005. 5. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice a decision rendered by us in HCP No.1053 of 2004, dated 14.3.2005. In that case, while considering similar factual details, after holding that the detention order is vitiated inasmuch as the Detaining Authority has not considered the relevant fact, namely, pendency of bail petition on the date on which the detention order was passed, we quashed the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind. The said decision is applicable to the case on hand. 6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, quashing the impugned order of detention dated 24.5.2004. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.