Judgment :- 1. The detenu Sakthivel is the petitioner in this Habeas Corpus Petition and he has challenged the order of detention passed by the Second Respondent, in Crl.M.P. No.1/GOONDA/2009 dated 12.10.2009. 2. On the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority citing as many as seventeen adverse cases in Crime No.599/2005, Udumalpet Police Station, Crime No.610/2005, Udumalpet Police Station, Crime No.611/2005, Udumalpet Police Station, Crime No.626/2005, Udumalpet Police Station, Crime No.178/2005, Komaralingam Police Station, Crime No.172/2008, Komaralingam Police Station, Crime No.1196/2009, Udumalpet Police Station, Crime No.1197/2009, Udumalpet Police Station, Crime No.1206/2009, Udumalpet Police Station, Crime No.1207/2009, Udumalpet Police Station, Crime No.1208/2009, Udumalpet Police Station, Crime No.1216/2009, Udumalpet Police Station, Crime No.1234/2009, Udumalpet Police Station, Crime No.302/2009, Komaralingam Police Station, Crime No.303/2009, Komaralingam Police Station, Crime No.304/2009, Komaralingam Police Station, Crime No.309/2009, Komaralingam Police Station, Crime No.314/2009, Komaralingam Police Station, and after looking into the materials available, the second respondent, the District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruppur District, formed an opinion that the detenu Sakthivel 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 12.10.2009, was passed. The said Order is under challenge in this Petition. 3. Though the order of detention is assailed on various grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the leave of the Court for raising additional ground and we permitted the same. The main submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the detenu was in remand in the ground case as well as in the adverse cases 14 to 17 and the Detaining Authority has observed the judicial remand of the detenu in the said cases, but has omitted to consider the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in those cases and the omission vitiates the order of detention. 4. We heard the Additional Public Prosecutor on the said submission. 5. From the material papers, it is seen that the detenu was in remand in the ground case in Crime No.314/2009 as well as in the adverse cases 14 to 17, namely the Cr. Nos. 302, 303, 304 and 309/2009, all registered on the file of Komaralingam Police Station. 4. We heard the Additional Public Prosecutor on the said submission. 5. From the material papers, it is seen that the detenu was in remand in the ground case in Crime No.314/2009 as well as in the adverse cases 14 to 17, namely the Cr. Nos. 302, 303, 304 and 309/2009, all registered on the file of Komaralingam Police Station. Though the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention has stated about the judicial remand of the detenu in the cases referred to, it has not considered the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in those cases. 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 12.10.2009, passed by the Second Respondent is set aside. The detenu Sakthivel, son of Mariappan is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his continued custody is required in connection with any other case.