Judgment :- R. Regupathi, J. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. She challenges the impugned order of detention dated 12.05.2008, detaining her husband as 'Goonda' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detaining authority while clamping the detention order, relied on a ground case in addition to the two adverse cases. The first adverse case is for an offence punishable under Section 341, 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) IPC relating to the occurrence that took place on 30.04.2008. The ground case occurrence took place on the next day viz., 01.05.2008. The detenu was arrested on the same day for the ground case as well as for the first adverse case and with reference to remand particulars, in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, referring to the ground case it has been observed by the detaining authority that “I am aware that Thiru.Sappanimuthu is in remand in Pappakudi Police Station Crime Number 36 of 2008 and he has not moved any bail application so far”. Thereafter, the detaining authority further observed that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application for the above case and further stated that if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, on satisfaction, clamped the order of detention. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenu is in remand for the first adverse case also and the possibility of his coming out on bail in the first adverse case has not been taken into consideration by the detaining authority and therefore, there is non application of mind on his part; thereby the order of detention is vitiated. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the detenu is in remand for the adverse cases also and materials have been furnished to this effect to the detenu. 5. On a perusal of the Paper Book, at Page Nos.63 & 99, we find a remand requisition dated 01.05.2008 pertaining to the first adverse case in Cr.No.33 of 2008 and the order remanding the accused upto 14.05.2008. 5. On a perusal of the Paper Book, at Page Nos.63 & 99, we find a remand requisition dated 01.05.2008 pertaining to the first adverse case in Cr.No.33 of 2008 and the order remanding the accused upto 14.05.2008. The order of detention has been passed on 12.05.2008 and the remand particulars relating to the first adverse case having been made available, the detaining authority should have applied his mind as to the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case and the subjective satisfaction arrived at must have been reflected in the grounds of detention. Inasmuch as such vital aspect is missing, we are of the considered view that there is clear non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority which will vitiate the order of detention. 6. Therefore, the Habeas Corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention passed by the first respondent in M.H.S.Confdl.No.76/2008, dated 12.05.2008 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.