JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the mother of detenu, namely, Senthil @ Senthilkumar, S/o.Gangappan, has challenged the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 07.03.2013 made in BDFGISSV.No.47/2013, branding the detenu as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. Though learned counsel for the petitioner raised several other grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his argument on the ground of non application of mind by the detaining authority to come to a conclusion that there is a real possibility of filing another bail application without producing any material in support thereof. Therefore, on this ground alone, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged this Court to quash the order of detention. 3. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, who would vehemently contend that the petitioner may move bail application even after dismissal of the second bail petition. Therefore, the order of detention is perfectly valid and the present habeas corpus petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority in Paragraph No.5 has inter alia stated that the detenu has filed a bail petition in the ground case on 28.01.2013 before the learned District Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.No.367 of 2013, which stood dismissed on 05.02.2013. Thereafter, another bail petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.O.P.No.3361 of 2013 on 08.02.2013, was also dismissed on 18.02.2013. Thus, there is a real possibility of filing one after another bail petition before the Hon'ble High Court and is also likelihood of being enlarged him on bail. 5. On perusal of paragraph no.5 of the detention order, it comes to light that the impugned detention order is outcome of non application of mind on the part of detaining authority. The decision of the detaining authority, viz., there is a likelihood of filing another bail petition and there is also a real possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail, lacks material particulars and is not supported by any source of evidence. In absence of any material document to support the decision, the decision of the detaining authority to that effect cannot be found substantial to the real possibility. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. 6. In absence of any material document to support the decision, the decision of the detaining authority to that effect cannot be found substantial to the real possibility. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Senthil @ Senthilkumar, S/o.Gangappan, made in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V.No.47 of 2013 dated 07.03.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.