Judgment : Per P. D. DINAKARAN, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother ( sic) of the detenu, by name Ramesh, who was incarcerated by order dated 17.3.2007 of the second respondent in Memo No. BDEGISSV No.17 of 2007 passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a Goonda and he seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. The order of detention dated 17.3.2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 28.2.2007 at about 11.00 hours, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Radhakrishnan to the Sub Inspector of Police, Otteri Police Station. According to the complainant, while he was running his mobile tea shop at Kelambakkam Road, Otteri Bazaar, the detenu came to his shop and at the knife point took away Rs.200/-from his pocket and threatened the public by showing the blood stained knife. On seeing this, the public, who were at the shop, ran hither and thither out of fear, thereby, the detenu created traffic dislocation in that area for some time. On the basis of the said complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police, Otteri Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 43 of 2007 for offence under Sections 294 (b), 384, 500(ii) I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the Circle Inspector of Guduvancherri arrested the detenu on 2.3.2007 at 6.30 hours. The detenu gave confession statement accepting the crime. Thereafter, he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Chengalpattu, who remanded him into judicial custody. 3. The detenu gave confession statement accepting the crime. Thereafter, he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Chengalpattu, who remanded him into judicial custody. 3. This second respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and finding one another adverse case pending against the detenu in Crime No. 42 of 2007, on the file of Otteri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 302 I.P.C. and 449, 302 I.P.C. and having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Goonda. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order of detention on the ground of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. According to him, the detaining authority without taking note of the offence in the adverse cases opined that there is a real possibility of the accused being released on bail and therefore, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. 5. It is a settled law that when the crime referred to in the adverse case is more grave in nature, there is no imminent possibility the accused being released on bail, and therefore, the order of detention based on such opinion is vitiated on the ground of non application of mind. 6. On perusal of the entire materials placed before us, we are satisfied that the detaining authority, even though had stated that the detenu is in remand in connection with the ground case and the bail application preferred by him is pending and that there is a likelihood of his coming out on bail after a lapse of time, had not taken into consideration the offence in the adverse case, which is grave in nature, and that there is no possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, before passing the order of detention. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and accordingly, the same is set aside. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.