Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Azhagu son of Theerthamalai aged about 30 years, who has been detained by means of the proceedings of the second respondent the District Collector and District Magistrate, Dharmapuri District, vide proceedings in S.C. No.1/2008 dated 1. 2008. 2. Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the detenu was arrested on 212. 2007 in Harur Police Station Cr. No.505 of 2007 under Sections 307, 324, 323, I.P.C., and remanded to judicial custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur, on the same day i.e., 212. 2007, no material has filed before this Court which would show the non-application mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. 3. Further he would submit that when a requisition was made for remand in both the adverse cases in Cr. No.505 of 2007 and in the ground case in Cr. No.1105 of 2007 on the file of the same police station for the offence under Sections 307 and 394, I.P.C., the Detaining Authority has referred only the remand made in the ground case and has not applied his mind as to the remand of the detenu made in the adverse case. In the circumstances, the detention order is vitiated for non-application of mind. 4. We have heard Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. As the Detaining Authority, who aware of the fact that the detenu was in remand and he would file a Bail Application and there is a possibility of coming out on bail, to arrive at a fair conclusion, he should apply his mind to the fact whether the detenu was in remand in the ground case as well as in the adverse cases. Factually in this case a requisition was made by the Sponsoring Authority for remand of the detenu in both ground and adverse cases, as could be seen from page 71 of the booklet viz., the requisition for remand. From the grounds of detention also it is seen that the Sponsoring Authority had informed the Detaining Authority as to the fact that the detenu was in remand in the adverse case in Hosur Police Station Cr. No.505 of 2007 from 212. 2007. From the grounds of detention also it is seen that the Sponsoring Authority had informed the Detaining Authority as to the fact that the detenu was in remand in the adverse case in Hosur Police Station Cr. No.505 of 2007 from 212. 2007. However, the Detaining Authority only referred the remand of the detenu in the ground case and has failed to consider that he was in remand in the adverse case also. In order to form an opinion that the detenu may come out on bail, the consideration of remand is essential. Even assuming that the detenu moved a Bail Application and came out of bail in the ground case, in the absence of satisfaction as to whether he has filed any Application in the adverse case as well and there is a possibility of coming out on bail, the detention order is vitiated for non-application of mind. Accordingly, it is liable to be set aside. 6. For the above reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 1. 2008 passed by the second respondent is quashed. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.