Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu by name Babu @ Ramesh Babu, who has been detained as Black Marketeer under the provisions of Section 3(2)(a) read with 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act 7 of 1980) by the impugned order of detention dated 23. 2008 passed by the second respondent. The detenu has three adverse cases to his credit. On noticing another case in Crime No.200 of 2008 on the file of Vellore Civil Supplies C.I.D. Unit, namely, the ground case, he was clamped with the detention order. 2. Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the special report submitted by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority, it is specifically mentioned that though the detenu was arrested and remanded on 13. 2008 in the ground case, he was shown absconding in all the three adverse cases, namely, in Crime Nos.429 of 2007, 46 of 2008 and 171 of 2008 on the file of the very same police. He was produced before the learned Magistrate on 13. 2008, who remanded the detenu in the other adverse cases also. The detaining authority has failed to apply his mind to the fact that the detenu has been remanded even in all the three adverse cases and therefore the detention order is vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind. 3. We have heard Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent no.3. 4. In paragraph-5 of the detention order, the detaining authority has stated as follows:- "Thiru Babu @ Ramesh Babu is in remand in Central Prison, Vellore in connection with Cr.No.200/2008 of Vellore CSCID Unit and has filed bail application before the Sessions Court, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.2379/2008 and the same was dismissed on 19.03.2008. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application for the above case before the same court of higher court, since in similar cases, bails are granted by the concerned court or higher courts after lapse of some time. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application for the above case before the same court of higher court, since in similar cases, bails are granted by the concerned court or higher courts after lapse of some time. A perusal of the same shows that the detaining authority has satisfied himself to the fact that the detenu had moved a bail application in the ground case and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing another bail application for the above case before the same Court or higher Courts. However, the detaining authority has failed to take into note of the fact that on the date when the detention order was passed, the detenu was in remand in all the other three adverse cases as well. Even if the detenu files a bail application in the ground case and comes out on bail, certainly he would not be entitled to be released in view of the remand in the other three adverse cases. In our considered view, the failure to consider the fact that the detenu was in remand in all the other three adverse cases would amount to non-application of mind and consequently the reference to the possibility of filing a bail application and coming out on bail in the ground case could not be considered as proper application of mind while passing the detention order. The above issue came up for consideration before this Court in the judgment in Arunachalam v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of Prohibition and Excise, Chennai and another (2008 (1) TLNJ 475 (Crl.) and this Court, after considering similar arguments, had quashed the detention order. Hence the detention order suffers from non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 5. In view of the above, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 23. 2008 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.