Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the father of detenu, Durgavel, aged 27 years, who was incarcerated by order dated 6. 2007 of the second respondent 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), the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in Ref No.236/BDFGISSV/2007, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu, now confined at Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. On the basis of Complaints lodged by one Durai that- (i) On 15. 2007 at about 3.20 p.m., the detenu and another wrongfully restrained him and threatened him to withdraw the case filed against him for murder, a case was registered in Crime No.3/2007 on the file of M5, Ennore Police Station, and (ii) On 25. 2007 at about 9.00 hours, the detenu wrongfully restrained him and threatened him at the point of knife and forcibly took Rs.300/- from his shirt pocket and wrist watch from his left hand and inflicted cut injuries on his left hand causing bleeding and also threatened the public who came for his rescue that they would be killed and hurled the bottles taken from the nearby bunk shop in the road, which scattered all over the roadside, making them to run on all sides seeking shelter, which resulted in traffic dislocation, the detenu was arrested and a case was registered in Crime No.326/2007 on the file of M5, Ennore Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 336, 392 read with 397, 427, 307 and 506(ii), IPC. 3. The second respondent, taking note of the above cases as ground case and four adverse cases, ordered his detention dubbing him as a goonda. 4. 3. The second respondent, taking note of the above cases as ground case and four adverse cases, 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, as the Detaining Authority, without taking note of the fact that the detenu was in remand in connection with the ground case and third and fourth adverse cases, stated that the detenu had not moved any bail Application and there was likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. 5. On perusal of the entire materials placed before us, we are satisfied that the Detaining Authority, even though in the grounds of detention stated that the detenu has not moved any bail Application with respect to the ground case and there is possibility of his coming out on bail after a lapse of time, had not taken into consideration the fact that the detenu is in remand in connection with third and fourth adverse cases for the offence of similar nature and accordingly, there is no possibility of the detenu coming out On bail, before passing the order of detention. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is quashed on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. 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.