Judgment R. Regupathi, J. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu by name Nagendran @ Nagu. She challenges the order of detention dated 03.04.2008, detaining her son as “Goonda” as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. After notice, the 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit and the petition has been taken up for enquiry. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Detaining Authority while clamping the detention order on the detenu, relied on 3 adverse cases apart from the ground case in Crime No.87 of 2008 relating to the occurrence dated 14.03.2008. In the ground case, the detenu was remanded up to 28.03.2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli. As regards the 3rd adverse case relating to the occurrence dated 13.03.2008, it has been stated as follows: “The Inspector of Police, Ponmalai P.S. has given the requisition to the Judicial Magistrate No.V., Tiruchirappalli to issue P.T.warrant, as the accused is in remand in Airport P.S. Cr.No.87/08.” (the ground case). He further points out that, as per such requisition, the detenu was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tiruchirappalli, on 19.03.2008 and his remand was extended till 02.04.2008. According to the learned counsel, since the detenu was under remand in both cases viz., the 3rd adverse case as well as the ground case on the date of the order of detention i.e. on 03.04.2008, in all probability, the sponsoring authority should have produced the remand particulars of the 3rd adverse case also, enabling the Detaining Authority to come to a conclusion one way or the other. In the grounds of detention, though the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail with regard to the ground case has been considered, such aspect in respect of the 3rd adverse case is not available; thus, it is quite clear that there is non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, in this regard, adversely affecting the impugned order of detention. 4. On verification from the records, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor admits that the remand particulars regarding the 3rd adverse case were not placed before the Detaining Authority. 5. 4. On verification from the records, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor admits that the remand particulars regarding the 3rd adverse case were not placed before the Detaining Authority. 5. We have perused the materials available on record and carefully considered the rival contentions advanced on either side. 6. It could be seen that though the requisition for remand has been made in respect of the 3rd adverse case, the result thereof has not been mentioned. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, a specific ground has been taken to the effect that the detenu was produced in the 3rd adverse case before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tiruchirappalli on 19.03.2008 and he was remanded till 02.04.2008. It is clear that on the date of the detention order viz., on 03.04.2008 the detenu was in judicial custody in both the cases. Neither the particulars regarding the remand of the detenu in the 3rd adverse case were furnished by the sponsoring authority nor there is clarification in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent on this aspect. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining Authority, since there is a failure on his part to take into consideration the remand of the detenu in the 3rd adverse case and the possibility of his coming out on bail; and therefore, the order of detention gets vitiated. 7. In this view of the matter, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 03.04.2008 passed in C.P.O/T.C /I.S/D.O.No.13/2008 by the first respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case or cause.