JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of zhe Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in C.No.34/G/IS/2012 dated 11.09.2012. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 07.08.2012 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B-8, Variety Hall Road Police Station in Crime No.505 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 387, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detaining authority, by informing that in a similar case, one accused was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi and assuming that there is also likelihood of the detenu being enlarged on bail, passed the impugned detention order. He further submitted that the detaining authority had failed to notice that bail was granted to the accused in the similar case on the basis of revocation of detention order passed against him. Therefore, the present detention order is outcome of improper application of mind. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records. 5. The detaining authority in Paragraph No.8 of the order inter alia stated that though the detenu has not filed any bail application in respect of Crime No.505 of 2012, in a similar case registered in Crime No.824 of 2011 on the file of North Police Station, Thoothukudi District, bail was granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2012 on 21.07.2012 to another accused. Therefore, the detaining authority, by inferring himself that the mother of detenu is taking steps to get him released on bail, that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and the same is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the detention order in mechanical manner. 6. On perusal of the bail order at page no.189 of the booklet, it is noticed that the bail was granted in the similar case, only because the detention order in respect of the accused was revoked. 6. On perusal of the bail order at page no.189 of the booklet, it is noticed that the bail was granted in the similar case, only because the detention order in respect of the accused was revoked. Such is not the situation in the instant case, and the detaining authority has not applied his independent mind to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion to detain the detenu. Therefore, the order in question cannot be sustained due to legal infirmity and the order is to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Hariharan (a) Hari, S/o.Unni Krishnan, made in C.No.34/G/IS/2012 dated 11.09.2012 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.