Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to petitioner's detention under TN Act No.14 of 82 vide detention order passed in 161/05 dated 13.04.2005 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein, quash the same as illegal, consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner before this Court and set him at liberty from Central Prison, Chennai.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is detained as 'Goonda' as contemplated under 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 13.04.2005, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. No one appears for the petitioner. We have verified the grounds raised in the affidavit filed in support of the above petition and also the impugned detention order. 3. In the affidavit, it is stated that inasmuch as the detenu has not filed any bail petition, there is no question of imminent possibility of his coming out on bail. According to him, the said relevant aspect has not been considered by the Detaining Authority, hence, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. With regard to the same, we verified paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention, wherein, it is stated that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that detenu Raja @ Rajkumar was in remand in V6 Kolathur Police Station Crime No.824/2005 and that he had not moved any bail petition until then. After stating so, he has concluded thus: "... there is imminent possibility of his coming out on bail for the above case since bails are granted in similar cases by the Sessions Court or Higher courts... " 5. It is not in dispute that the detenu has not moved any bail application, at least, till the date of the detention order. In such circumstances, in the absence of adequate materials, it is not clear as to how the Detaining Authority arrived at the conclusion that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail without filing bail petition. In such circumstances, in the absence of adequate materials, it is not clear as to how the Detaining Authority arrived at the conclusion that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail without filing bail petition. Courts have taken the view that if bail application is pending on the date of passing the detention order, the Detaining Authority may be right in arriving at the conclusion that the detenu will come out on bail by orders of the Sessions Court concerned or Higher courts. 6. In the case on hand, inasmuch as even according to the Detaining Authority, the detenu has not filed bail petition, there is no question of 'imminent possibility' of his coming out on bail. This material aspect has not been considered by the Detaining Authority while passing the detention order. Though there is possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail petition and on the orders of the court, inasmuch as there was no bail petition at all on the date of consideration by the Detaining Authority, we are satisfied that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind before passing the detention order. On this ground, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. 7. 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.