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 leading to the detention of the detenu who is detained as Bootlegger at Central Prison, Chennai by the 2nd respondent vide his order BDFGISSV No.41 of 2006 dated 06.08.2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents one and two to produce the body of the detenu Ramesh, S/o Munusamy from the Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, by name Ramesh, who is detained as a ''Bootlegger" 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 06.08.2006, 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, the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the averments made in paragraph No.5(i) of the grounds of detention submitted 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. Elaborating the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the detenu himself has moved a bail application in respect of Cr.No.313 of 2006 on the file of PEW, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram in Crl.M.P.No.8476 of 2006 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu on 19.07.2006 and according to the detaining authority, the said petition is pending on the date of passing of the detention order and it is posted to 07.08.2006. While so, while considering the imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on the orders of the Court has expressed that "........I am also aware that it is very likely that he may come out on bail by filing a bail application before the same Court or Higher Court since in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned Court or Higher Court after lapse of time...........". As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the bail application of the detenu was very well pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu and the said fact was very well noted by the detaining authority, it is not clear how he arrived at a conclusion that the detenu will come out on bail by filing a bail application before the same Court or higher Court which amply shows his non-application of mind in considering the case of the detenu, and detaining him as a Bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. We accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 5. 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 connection with some other case or cause.