Judgment :- C. Nagappan, J. 1. The mother-in-law of the detenu has filed the Habeas Corpus Petition seeking for quashing the order of detention, dated 7.7.2009, passed by the First Respondent. 2. On the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority citing six Adverse Cases in Crime No.128 of 2005, Samalpatti Police Station; Crime No.208 of 2008, R.K. Pettai Police Station; Crime No.196 of 2008, Berigai Police Station; Crime No.424 of 2008, Kandikuppam Police Station; and Crime No.212/2009, Bagalur Police Station and the Ground Case in Crime No.215/2009, on the file of Bagalur Police Station and after looking into the materials available, the First Respondent, the District Collector and District magistrate, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri, formed an opinion that the detenu was to be termed as Goonda since his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, the order of detention, dated 7.7.2009, was passed. The said order is under challenge in this Petition. 3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that was in Judicial remand not only in the Ground Case in Crime No.215 of 2009, but also in the Adverse Cases 2 to 6 and the same is reflected in the grounds of detention, but the Detaining Authority has considered the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case and has omitted to consider whether such possibility exist in Adverse Cases 2 to 6 and the said omission would vitiate the order of detention. 4. We heard the learned Additional public Prosecutor on the above said submission. 5. In the grounds of detention in Paragraph 4, the Detaining Authority has referred to the remand of the detenu in the Ground Case in Crime No.215 of 2009 and has observed that the detenu has not moved any Bail Application, but there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing the Bail Application. In the description of the Adverse Cases 2 to 6 in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has specifically that the detenu was arrested on 16.6.2009 and in all the cases he was remanded and lodged in the Central Prison, Salem and the case is under investigation. In the description of the Adverse Cases 2 to 6 in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has specifically that the detenu was arrested on 16.6.2009 and in all the cases he was remanded and lodged in the Central Prison, Salem and the case is under investigation. Having referred to the remand of the detenu in Adverse Cases 2 to 6, it is imperative on the part of the Detaining Authority to consider whether there exists any possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in these cases, but the same has not been considered. 6. The Supreme Court in the decision in Kamarunissa v. Union of India and another, 1991 SCC (Cri) 88, had laid down that in the case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that the is actually in custody; if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before is that thee is a real possibility of his being released on bail and on being so released, in all probability, he would indulge in prejudicial activity and if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing and it has to record its satisfaction in his behalf while passing the detention order. 7. In the present case, the Detaining Authority in the ground of detention though mentioned that the detenu was remanded in Adverse Cases 2 to 6, it has failed to consider as to whether there is real possibility of the detenu being released on bail in those cases. There is non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in omitting to consider the real possibility of the detenu being released on bail in those cases and it vitiates the order of detention. On this ground alone, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the HabeasCorpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order dated 7.7.2009 is set aside. The detenu-Bagaluran @ Vijiyan @ Sankar s/o. Venkatappa is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.