Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. 1. This Petition is brought forth by the father of the detenu challenging the order of the First Respondent in Memo No. 286/BDFGISSV/2009 in T.P.D.A. 9414 dated 13/05/2010, whereby his son Radhakrishnan was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and looked into the materials available on record in particular, the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in five Adverse cases viz. (i) Crime No. 1075 of 2009 registered by R-8, Vadapalani Police Station for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No. 134 of 2010 registered by K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station fir the offences under sections 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Crime No. 166 of 2010 registered by K-8 Arumbakkam Police Station for the offences under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) Crime No. 353 of 2010 registered by K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station for the offences under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of TNPP(D&L) Act; (v) Crime No. 300 of 2010 registered by K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 384 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No. 388 of 2010 registered by K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station for the offences under Sections 332, 506(ii), 336, 427 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 24/03/2010 and the detenu surrendered before XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai on 25/03/2010, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of material placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, which, according to him was strong enough to set aside the detention order is that in paragraph 4 and page 5 of the detention order, it is stated that the detenu has not moved any Bail Application in the ground case, but it was not correct. 4. The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, which, according to him was strong enough to set aside the detention order is that in paragraph 4 and page 5 of the detention order, it is stated that the detenu has not moved any Bail Application in the ground case, but it was not correct. As could be Been in page No. 162 of the booklet, the detenu has actually moved for bail before the Vacation Court in Crl. M.P. No. 4572 of 2010 and there was an order of dismissal of the Bail Application. Equally in page No. 173- Special Report, it was actually made a mention about the said dismissal order. 5. This court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to five Adverse cases and one Ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 7. In paragraph 4 of the detention order, it is stated as follows: “4. I am aware that Thiru. Radhakrishnan is in remandin K-8 Arumbakkam Police Station Crime Nos. 134/2010 and 166/2010 and K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No. 300/2010 and K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station Crime Nos. 353/2010 and 388/2010 and he has not moved any Bail Application for K-8 Arumbakkam Police Station Crime Nos. 134/2010 and 166/2010 and K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No. 300/2010 and K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station Crime No. 353/2010 and 388/2010 so far. The Sponsoring Authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru. Radhakrishnan are taking action to take him on bail by filing Bail Application for K-8 ARumbakkam Police Station Crime Nos. 134/2010 and 166/2010 and K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No. 300/2010 and K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station Crime Nos. 353/2010 and388/2010 before the appropriate Court and since in a similar case registered in V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No. 381/2009 under Sections 147, 448, 384 and 506(ii), IPC and 3 (1) TNPP (D&L) Act, bail was granted by the Chief Metropoliton Magistrate Court, Egmore, in Crl.M.P. No. 1361/2009, within 6 days. 353/2010 and388/2010 before the appropriate Court and since in a similar case registered in V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No. 381/2009 under Sections 147, 448, 384 and 506(ii), IPC and 3 (1) TNPP (D&L) Act, bail was granted by the Chief Metropoliton Magistrate Court, Egmore, in Crl.M.P. No. 1361/2009, within 6 days. Further, in a similar case registered in E-2 Royapettah Police Station Cr.No. 382/2009 under Sections 341 and 307, IPC, bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions in Crl. M.P. Nos. 5266/2009. Hence, there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another Bail Application for K8 Arumbakkam Police Station Crime Nos. 134/2010 and 166/2010 and K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No. 300/2010 and K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station Crime Nos. 353/2010 and 388/2010 before the appropriate court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further the recourse to normal Criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudiced to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru. Radhakrishnan is also a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.” 8. From the very reading of the above, it is clear that the Authority has stated that there was no Bail Application in the ground case. On the contrary, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, page No. 162 of the booklet contains the order in Crl. M.P. No. 4572 of 2010 passed by the V Vacation Judge, Chennai where Bail Application was rejected. This fact is also mentioned in Special Report found in page no. 173. While there was a Bail Application filed by the detenu in the Ground Case, which came up for orders and the same was also rejected, the Authority has stated that there was no Bail Application at all. This would be quite indicative of the fact of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority which would vitiate the detention order. This would be quite indicative of the fact of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority which would vitiate the detention order. On this ground, the detention order has got to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the First Respondent in Memo No. 286/BDFGISSV/2009 in R.D.P.A. 9414 dated 13/05/2010. The detenu, namely, Radhakrishnan, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.