Judgment :- C. Nagappan, J. 1. The father of the detenu has filed the Habeas Corpus Petition seeking for quashing the Order of detention dated 11.12.2009, passed by the Second Respondent. 2. On the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority citing four adverse cases in Crime No.118 of 2008, Thalayanar Police Station, Crime No.197 of 2008, Crime No.350 of 2009, Crime No.353 of 2009, all the cases registered on the file of Thalayanar Police Station, besides the ground case in Cr. No.361 of 2009 registered on the file of Thalayanar Police Station and after looking into the materials available, the Second respondent, the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam formed an opinion that the detenu was to be termed as “bootlegger” 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 11.12.2009, was passed. The said Order is under challenge in this Petition. 3. Though several grounds have been raised assailing the order of detention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought leave of the Court to raise additional ground and we permitted the same. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Detaining Authority has observed that the detenu is in remand in the ground case in Thalayanar Police Station in Cr. No.361 of 2009 and has moved Bail Application and the same was dismissed on 2.12.2009 and however it has not considered the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and the omission to consider the same would vitiate the order of detention. 4. We herd the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above said submission. 5. In the grounds of detention in paragraph 5, the Detaining Authority has referred to the judicial remand of the detenu in the ground case in Cr. No.361 of 2009 and the dismissal of the Bail Application filed by the detenu, but it has not considered the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case. 5. In the grounds of detention in paragraph 5, the Detaining Authority has referred to the judicial remand of the detenu in the ground case in Cr. No.361 of 2009 and the dismissal of the Bail Application filed by the detenu, but it has not considered the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another, 1991 SCC (Cri.) 88, it is permissible to clamp an order of detention while the detenu is in remand, provided the Detaining Authority satisfies itself about the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. In the present case, the Detaining Authority has failed to consider the same and the same vitiates the order of detention and on this ground alone the detention order is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 11.12.2009 is set aside. The detenu Mannaru @ Gnanavel is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his continued custody is required in connection with any other case.