JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the third respondent, dated 29.11.2012, made in Cr.M.P.No.28/BM/2012 [E1], quash the same, and to produce the petitioner's husband, namely, Harish, s/o. Appu, aged about 32 years, confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. The detenu, namely, Harish, son of Appu, has been detained, under Section 3[1] r/w. Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980), pursuant to the order passed by the third respondent, in his proceedings Cr.M.P.No.28/BM/2012 [E1], dated 29.11.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the third respondent, dated 29.11.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore. 3. Even though various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in the present Habeas Corpus petition, while challenging the order of detention, passed by the third respondent, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order of detention passed by the third respondent, on 29.11.2012, is liable to be set aside, on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the detaining authority, while passing the impugned order of detention, dated 29.11.2012, had not applied his mind properly. In order to substantiate the said claim, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had referred to paragraph No.6 of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows:- "6. I am aware that Thiru.Harish was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Cr.Nos.67/2012 and 280/2012 under section 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] order 1982 r/w.7 [1]a[ii] of E.C. Act 1955 on 03.11.2012 at 06.30 P.M. and lodged at Central Prison, Coimbatore till 17.11.2012 as remand prisoner. Further his remand was extended till 30.11.2012. I am aware that Thiru.Harish was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Cr.Nos.67/2012 and 280/2012 under section 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] order 1982 r/w.7 [1]a[ii] of E.C. Act 1955 on 03.11.2012 at 06.30 P.M. and lodged at Central Prison, Coimbatore till 17.11.2012 as remand prisoner. Further his remand was extended till 30.11.2012. He has filed a bail application in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Unit Cr.No.67/2012 under Section 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] order 1982 r/w.7[1]a[ii] of E.C. Act 1955 before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Coimbatore in CMP No.4421/2012 is pending and in Cr.No.280/12 under Section 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] order 1982 r/w. 7[1]a[ii] of E.C. Act 1955 his bail petition was dismissed on 19.11.2012 in CMP No.4435/2012 by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore. Further he has filed bail application before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore District in CMP No.3657/2012 was dismissed on 27.11.2012. In a similar case registered in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Coimbatore Unit Cr.No.912/11 under section 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] order 1982 r/w 7[1]a[ii] of E.C. Act 1955 bail was granted to the accused Thiru.Mohanraj by the court of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore in CMP No.61/2012 on 20.1.2012. Hence, there is a real possibility of Thiru.Harish coming out on bail in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Unit Cr.No.280/12 under Section 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] order 1982 r/w. 7[1]a [ii] of E.C. Act 1955 by filing a bail petition before the appropriate court. Since bails are being granted by the courts in such cases. If he comes out on bail, he is likely to indulge in such further prejudicial activities in future. Therefore there is a compelling necessity to pass an order of detention against him with a view to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future. Further recourse to the normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities to the community. Further recourse to the normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities to the community. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that Thiru.Harish is a "Black Marketeer" and there is a compelling necessity to detain him under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 in order to prevent him from indulging in such acts in future which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community." 5. Even though the detaining authority had stated, in paragraph No.6 of the grounds of detention, that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Unit Cr.No.280 of 2012, by filing a bail petition before the appropriate court, it is noted that the bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, in Crime No.280 of 2012, had been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore, as early as on 19.11.2012, in C.M.P.No.4435 of 2012. It is also noted that the bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore District, in C.M.P. No.3657 of 2012 had also been dismissed, on 27.11.2012. However, the detaining authority had stated that in a similar case registered in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Coimbatore, Crime No.912 of 2011, bail had been granted to the accused Mohanraj, by the court of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore, in C.M.P. No.61 of 2012. 6. In view of the fact that the bail applications filed on behalf of the detenu, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore, and also before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, had been dismissed, as on the date of the passing of the impugned order of detention, it is not appropriate for the detaining authority to state that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, by filing a bail application, in Crime No.280 of 2012, before the appropriate Court. Hence, we are of the considered view that the detaining authority had passed the impugned order of detention, dated 29.11.2012, without proper application of mind. 7. Hence, we are of the considered view that the detaining authority had passed the impugned order of detention, dated 29.11.2012, without proper application of mind. 7. In such circumstances, the impugned detention order, passed by the third respondent, dated 29.11.2012, is set aside and this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.