Judgment :- S. MANIKUMAR, J. Mother of the detenu, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition, for quashing the order of detention passed against her son K.Manickaraja Son of Kruppasamy Thevar, branding him as Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained by virtue of the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tuticorin, the first respondent herein. 2. In the order of detention, reference has been made to the involvement of the detenu in two adverse cases. One on the file of the Elayirampannai Police Station in Cr.No.80 of 2007 under Sections 342 and 307 IPC and the other for his alleged commission of offences under Sections 294 (b), 387 and 506(ii) IPC., on the file of the Koppampatti Police Station in Cr.No.52 of 2007. Besides, coming to adverse notice in the above two cases, on 12.10.2007, the detenu and his associates were alleged to have cut and brutally murdered one Balasubramanian on the spot. By indulging in such act, his associates were alleged to have created fear and panic in the mind of the public and on the basis of a complaint, a case in Kalugumalai Police Station Cr.No.90 of 2007 was registered against the detenu and others under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC. The detenu surrendered himself in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate on 15.10.2007 and after brief spell in the police custody, he is now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai. The case is under investigation. 3. The detaining authority after narrating the incident in the grounds case, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to detain him as Goonda under the Act 14 of 1982. While considering the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging himself in further activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction, and at paragraph 4 of the detention order, concluded as follows:- "4. I am aware that Thiru.Manickaraja was produced before the court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti after police custody on 23.10.2007 and remanded to judicial custody till 06.11.2007. He is a remand prisoner kept in Central Prison, Palayamkottai. His remand period was extended upto 20.11.2007, 04.12.2007 and 18.12.2007. I am aware that Thiru.Manickaraja has filed bail application in the court of Principal Sessioins, Thoothukudi in Cr.M.P.No.3281/07 and the same has been posted on 14.12.2007. He is a remand prisoner kept in Central Prison, Palayamkottai. His remand period was extended upto 20.11.2007, 04.12.2007 and 18.12.2007. I am aware that Thiru.Manickaraja has filed bail application in the court of Principal Sessioins, Thoothukudi in Cr.M.P.No.3281/07 and the same has been posted on 14.12.2007. I am also aware that it is very likely that he may come out of bail. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, the recourse of normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that the said Thiru.Manickaraja is a "Goonda" and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982." 4. Referring to the endorsement made by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur, dated 15.11.2007, on the memo filed by the Inspector of Police, Alangulam Circle, Alangulam, found at Page 65 the copy of the extract of case dairy at page 67, enclosed in the booklet furnished to the detenu and inviting the attention of this Court to Paragraph 4 of the Detention Order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority has merely referred to the pendency of the adverse cases and the bail application in Cr.M.P.No.3281 of 2007 filed in the ground case, pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi and has failed to consider that the detenu was under custody in two other adverse cases also. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Sureka Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007(1) MLJ (Crl.) 257 he submitted that the detaining authority ought to have considered the possibility of the detenu being released on bail in the adverse cases also, and therefore there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Placing reliance on Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Govt., reported in 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145, he submitted that there is delay in disposal of the representation made by the detenu. 5. Placing reliance on Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Govt., reported in 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145, he submitted that there is delay in disposal of the representation made by the detenu. 5. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, Mr.Daniel Manoharan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that only after careful consideration of the materials placed before him, the detaining authority, having arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu was in judicial custody in the cases registered against him, passed the order of detention. He further submitted that till the date of detention, the detenu had moved a bail petition only in one case in Kalugumalai Police Station Cr.No.90 of 2007 in Cr.No.3281 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi and that, it was very likely that the detenu on coming out on bail in the ground case would also file bail applications in other two cases. Therefore, the detaining authority has rightly come to the conclusion that there is every likelihood that the detenu would come out of bail in the case registered against him. Going by the date of representation of the detenu, remarks received and other particulars mentioned in the Chart produced at the time of hearing, he further submitted that there was no delay in considering the representation of the detenu. 6. We heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. On perusal of the chart, we are convinced that there is no delay in considering the representation of the detenu and therefore, the contention is rejected. 7A.Considering the other point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly, the detenu has come to the adverse notice of the police in two criminal case in Elayirampannai Police Station Cr.No.80 of 2007 under Sections 342 and 307 IPC and another case in Kuppampatti Police Station Cr.No.52 of 2007 under Sections 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) IPC. In the ground case, the detenu had surrendered himself before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri on 15.10.2007 and was taken to police custody on 22.10.2007. Thereafter, he was produced before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Koilpatti on 23.01.2007 and remanded to judicial custody upto 06.11.2007 in Central Prison, Palayamkottai. In the ground case, the detenu had surrendered himself before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri on 15.10.2007 and was taken to police custody on 22.10.2007. Thereafter, he was produced before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Koilpatti on 23.01.2007 and remanded to judicial custody upto 06.11.2007 in Central Prison, Palayamkottai. At Paragraph 4 of the detention order, reference has been made to the periodical extension of the remand upto 18.12.2007 and, the filing of the bail application in the ground case and the likelihood of the defence coming out on bail. Though the detenu is in judicial custody in respect of the two adverse cases also, the detaining authority has not at all adverted to the fact as to whether there is any possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in said cases. 8. In similar circumstances, this Court in Suneka vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007 (1) MLJ (Crl) 257, following the decisions in Anjalammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2004 MLJ (Crl) 829) and Balasubramanaian vs. Commissioner of Police, Madurai City (2006 (1) MLJ (Crl) 37, at Paragraph 6 held as follows: "Non-application of mind is on account of the fact that the detenu has been remanded in connection with two cases, but the detaining authority has referred to the possibility of the detenu being released on bail by referring to the bail Applications Crl.M.P.Nos.4007 and 4050 of 2006, which had been filed in Cr.No.44 of 2006. In other words, the detaining authority has not at all considered the possibility of the detenu being released in other case. Even if bail order would have been passed in Cr.No.44 of 2006, the detenu would be still detained in prison as no bail application had been filed in connection with the earlier case, ie., Cr.No.37 of 2006. The detaining authority has not at all applied his mind to the aforesaid aspect. As a matter of fact, almost on similar circumstances, the Division Bench in Balasubramanian @ Subramanian @ Subbudu @ Subbu v. Commissioner of Police, Madurai City (supra), had quashed such detention on account of the fact that the detaining authority had only referred to filing of bail application in one crime and there is no reference to filing of bail application in connection with other similar crime." 9. In the case on hand, scrutiny of Paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention reveals that the detaining authority has failed to consider that even if the detenu was to be released on bail in the ground case, still he would be under confinement in other two adverse cases. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would be applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore, we are constrained to quash the order of detention, though the allegations against the detenu are quite serious in nature. 10. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu K.Manickaraja Son of Kruppasamy Thevar confined in Central Prison, palayamkottai, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. No costs.