Judgment : Per K. MOHAN RAM, J. 1. Heard Samuel Raja Pandian learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and V. R. Bala Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. The detenu himself has filed the above Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the order of preventive detention passed against him by the second respondent herein under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 on the ground that he is a “Goonda”. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions but, it is not necessary for us to deal all such contentions, as, in our opinion, the contention relating to non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority to the fact that the detenue had been remanded in connection with four different crimes has vitiated the order of detention. 4. From the grounds of detention, it is apparent that the detenu was arrested in connection with the following cases, namely, (i) K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 678 of 2006. (ii) M-4 Red Hills Police Station, Crime No. 324 of 2006. (iii) G-7 Chetpet Police Station, Crime No. 557 of 2006. (iv) G-7 Chetpet Police Station, Crime No. 558 of 2006. All the above said criminal cases have been registered against the detenu for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In the grounds of detention in paragraph 4, the Detaining Authority while recording his satisfaction has stated as follows:- “4. I am aware that Thiru Albert is in remand in G.7 Chetpet Police Station Crime No. 572 of 2006 and he has not moved any bail petition so far. I am also aware that there is real possibility that he may came out on bail for the above case by filing bail application in the Sessions Court or High Court since in similar cases bails are granted by the Sessions Court or High Court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fact that the detenu had been remanded to judicial custody in respect of the above said four adverse cases is not disputed. In fact, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenu had been arrested in connection with the above said four adverse cases also. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fact that the detenu had been remanded to judicial custody in respect of the above said four adverse cases is not disputed. In fact, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenu had been arrested in connection with the above said four adverse cases also. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. The above said satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention shows that the Detaining Authority was not at all aware that the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the above said four adverse cases also and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the order of detention is vitiated. 7. Per contrathe learned Additional Public Prosecutor drew our attention to the following observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 7.8.2006 passed in H.C.P. No. 494 of 2006 namely. “4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a reading of paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention shows that though the detaining authority has referred to two crime Nos.128 of 2006 and 132 of 2006 on the file of J9, Thuraipakkam Police Station, he has not applied his mind whether any bail application was moved in respect of Crime No.132/2006, which relates to ground case. Paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention shows that the detaining authority, after referring the above mentioned two crime numbers, has stated that the detenu has moved the bail application before the District Principal and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu in Crime No. 2732 of 2006 and the same is dismissed. After finding that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another application before the same Court or any Court, he arrived at a conclusion that if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. A reading of the above paragraph shows that the detaining authority has not adverted to the ground occurrence i. e. Crime No. 132 of 2006. “5. A reading of the above paragraph shows that the detaining authority has not adverted to the ground occurrence i. e. Crime No. 132 of 2006. “5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the adverse case Crime No.128 of 2006 relates to various offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 I.P.C. On the other hand the ground case Crime No. 132 of 2006 of J9 Thurai-pakkam Police Station relates to the offences under Sections 341, 392, 397, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. As rightly pointed out, compared to these two crime numbers, earlier Crime No. 128 of 2006 viz., adverse case, is graver in nature since the offence involved is under Section 302 I.P.C. Inasmuch as the detaining authority has adverted to, considered and taken note of all the relevant facts with regard to the offences relating to graver offence, merely because there is no reference to Crime No. 138 of 2006, which relates to lesser offence, we are of the view that the detaining authority cannot be faulted with and the detention order cannot be interfered with.” Basing reliance on the above said observations, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as the Detaining Authority has considered and taken note of all the relevant facts with regard to the offences relating to graver offence, namely, G-7, Chetpet Police Station, Crime No. 572 of 2006, the non-reference to the four adverse cases relating to minor offence of Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code does not vitiate the order of detention. 8. We have carefuly considered the above submissions made on either side. A perusal of paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention shows that the Detaining Authority was not even aware of the fact that the detenu was in custody relating to the four adverse cases also. Such non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority no doubt vitiates the order of detention. 9. In the decision reported in Balasubra-manian alias Subramanian alias Subbudu alias Subbu v. Commissioner of Police, Madurai city and another 2006 (1) MLJ (Crl) 371 a Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows :- “5. Such non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority no doubt vitiates the order of detention. 9. In the decision reported in Balasubra-manian alias Subramanian alias Subbudu alias Subbu v. Commissioner of Police, Madurai city and another 2006 (1) MLJ (Crl) 371 a Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows :- “5. A specific contention has been raised by the petitioner regarding such non-application of mind in ground No. (c) to the effect that the detaining authority has not considered the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the second adverse case, which is also a serious crime registered under Section 397, I.P.C. In reply to such contention, in the counter affidavit, it has been indicated that the detaining authority has recorded that the detenu was likely to be released in connection with Crime No. 1329 of 2005 and there was no non-application of mind in not considering the possibility of coming out on bail in other cases.” “6. In our opinion, such stand taken in the counter affidavit cannot be accepted. Even assuming that the detenu would have been released in connection with Crime No. 1399 of 2005, he could not have come out on bail as remand was also in respect of another case, viz., Crime No. 2270 of 2004 and unless bail order would have been passed in such case, the detenu would have continued to remain inside the jail. Therefore, non-consideration of this aspect has obviously vitiated the order of detention. The aforesaid conclusion is supported by a Division Bench decision of this Court to which one of us (P.K.MISRA, J.) was a party, Anjalammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 MLJ (Crl) 829.” 10. In our considered view, the law laid down in the above said decision squarely applies to the facts of this case. It is pertinent to point out that no satisfaction is recorded anywhere in the grounds of detention that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in respect of the above said four adverse cases. The said non-consideration of the Detaining Authority coupled with the total lack of awareness on his part about the custody of the detenu in respect of the above said four adverse cases vitiates the order of detention. 11. The said non-consideration of the Detaining Authority coupled with the total lack of awareness on his part about the custody of the detenu in respect of the above said four adverse cases vitiates the order of detention. 11. In the order of Division Bench relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is seen that the Detaining Authority was aware of the custody of the detenu in respect of both the cases. But in the instant case, there is total lack of awareness on the part of the Detaining Authority about the custody of the detenu in respect of the four adverse cases. Therefore, in our considered view, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. 12. In such view of the matter, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 7.9.2006 passed against the detenu/petitioner herein by the second respondent is hereby quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith from custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.