Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The petitioner is the friend of the detenu by name NEPPOLIAN @ RAMAKRISHNAN, aged 20 years, son of Elumalai, who has been detained as a bootlegger by the order of detention by the second respondent under Act 14/1982 vide reference in No. C-2/49051/2007 dated 011. 2007. 2. In order to clamp the order of detention, the detaining authority had taken adverse notice of five cases registered in Cr.Nos.395, 402 of 2006, 356 and 368 of 2007 on the file of Thiruvennainallur Police Station and Cr.No.675 of 2007 on the file of Tirukoilur Prohibition Enforcement Wing under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, apart from ground case. 3. The order of detention is questioned on the two grounds viz., (1) that on the date of detention, the detenu was an adolescent and had not even completed 19 years and therefore, in the light of the judgement reported in P.Shanmuganathan Vs. Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai and another, (2007) 1 M.L.J. 775, the detenu cannot be detained in prison and (2) when the remand of the detenu was made in Cr.Nos.491 of 2007, 402 of 2006, 356 of 2006 and 368 of 2007 on the file of Thiruvennainallur Police Station at the request of the sponsoring authority, in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has not taken into consideration of the remand of the detenu in Cr.No.491 of 2007. Therefore, the order of detention is vitiated on the ground of non application of mind. 4. We have heard Mr.R.Sankara Subbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. Though the impugned order of detention is questioned on the two grounds, we are inclined to take into consideration the second ground as there is substance in it. Therefore, we need not discuss the first ground put forth by the learned counsel counsel for the petitioner. 6. In page 16 of the booklet, the Judicial Magistrate has referred to a requisition made by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station for judicial remand of the detenue in respect of Crime No.491 of 2007 among other cases and on the basis of such requisition, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ullundurpet had extended the judicial remand, as it could be seen from his communication dated 011. 2007 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Cuddalore. 2007 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Cuddalore. Therefore, the detenu was in judicial remand on 011. 2007 and the order of detention was passed on 011. 2007. In para-5 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned as follows:- ".....I am aware that Thiru.Neppolian alias Ramakrishnan, son of Elumalai is now in remand in Central Prison, Cuddalore in connection with the cases in Cr.No.402/2006, Cr.No.356/2007 and Cr.No.368/2007 of Thiruvennainallur Police Station, Crime No.675/2007 and Crime No.1637/2007 of Thirukoilur Prohibition Enforcement Wing and he has filed bail applications before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Villupuram in Crl.M.P.No.12098/2007 and Crl.M.P.No. 12097/2007 respectively for the cases in Cr.No.675/2007 and Cr.No.1637/2007 of Tirukoilur Prohibition Enforcement Wing and the above bail applications are pending. However, it is very likely that he may come out on bail in the above pending bail applications. He has not filed any bail application for the cases in Cr.No.402/2006, Cr.No.356/2007 and Cr.No.368/2007 of Thiruvennainallur Police Station till date. However, there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail applications for the above cases before the appropriate court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Health and Public Order. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Health and Public Order......." 7. From the above, it is seen that the detaining authority has formed its opinion that on the date of detention, the detenu was in remand and he has not filed bail applications but, it concluded that there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing applications. However, the detaining authority failed to consider the fact that the detenu was in remand in respect of Cr.No.491 of 2007 of Thiruvennainallur Police Station also. The effect of such non consideration of the remand came up for consideration in Kannan @ Kannappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another 1992 (1) (Crimes) 1164 , the Division Bench of this Court after referring to the judgement of the Supreme Court dated 211. The effect of such non consideration of the remand came up for consideration in Kannan @ Kannappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another 1992 (1) (Crimes) 1164 , the Division Bench of this Court after referring to the judgement of the Supreme Court dated 211. 1990 in W.P.No.9877 of 1990 Rajendran @ Giri V. State of Tamil Nadu, has held that the failure to consider the remand in respect of a crime number would amount to non-application of mind and consequently vitiate the order of detention. The facts in the present case also falls squarely with the above finding of the Division Bench of this court, as admittedly the one of the cases registered in Cr.No.491 of 2007 on the file of Thiruvennainallur Police Station in which also detenue was kept in judicial remand on the date when the order of detention came to be passed, was not considered by the detaining authority. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the detaining authority had not applied its mind while passing the impugned order of detention and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 8. For the above said reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 011. 2007 passed by the second respondent against the detenu by name Neppolian @ Ramakrishnan s/o.Elumalai is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.