ORDER Per P. SATHASIVAM, J. The petitioner, by name Periyannan, who is detained as a “Goonda” as contemplated under Section3(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 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 20.1.2006, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the detenu Periyannan has filed the bail application even on 17.1.2006, notice was taken by the Additional Public Prosecutor on 18.1.2006, the same was not placed before the detaining authority and not considered by the detaining authority, when he passed the impugned detention order on 20.1.2006. According to him, non-consideration of pending bail application, wherein the detenu had retracted the facts in the ground case against the legality of the detention order, vitiates the order of detention. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court reported in 1999 (2) M.W.N. (Crl.) page 244 (P.M. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu rep., by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9 and Another). 4. While elaborating the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the copy of the bail petition in Crl. O.P. No. 484 of 2006 filed by the detenu Periyannan, which is dated 17.1.2006. The endorsement on the docket of the bail petition shows that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken notice on 18.1.2006. In such circumstances, it is but proper on the part of the sponsoring authority to communicate/forward the copy of the bail petition and the contents therein to the detaining authority. In the above referred to decision, the Division Bench, in para 5, has held as follows: “... If the bail application was known to the Public Prosecutor and he had sufficient notice thereof, then it will have to be deemed that it was known to the State Government whose representative Public Prosecutor normally is .....” It is not in dispute that the Public Prosecutor is representing the State in general and the second respondent in particular. 5. If the bail application was known to the Public Prosecutor and he had sufficient notice thereof, then it will have to be deemed that it was known to the State Government whose representative Public Prosecutor normally is .....” It is not in dispute that the Public Prosecutor is representing the State in general and the second respondent in particular. 5. In such circumstances, it is but proper on the part of the sponsoring authority to forward the said information/material to the detaining authority. As rightly observed in the Division Bench decision, non-consideration of the pending bail application, wherein the detenu retracted the ground case would be a major against the validity of the detention order. We agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench and also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.