JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.90 of 2013 dated 29.03.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl. No. Police Station Sections of Law and Crime No. 1. E4 341, 427, 448, 397 Abiramapuram and 506 (ii) IPC Police Station Crime No.747 of 2012 2. E4 448, 294 (b), 323 Abiramapuram and 506 (ii) IPC Police Station Crime No.228 of 2013 The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu on 24.02.2013, by the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, E-4 Abiramapuram Police Station, in Crime No.231 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 353, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the representation of the Sponsoring Authority that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to take him on bail by filing another bail application in respect of one adverse case and the ground case. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is no material to support such finding and therefore, the detention order is to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the materials available on record. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out without any valid material in support thereof, has passed the impugned order of detention in a mechanical manner, which really shows the non application of mind on the part of detaining authority. For the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Murugan (a) Nondi Murugan, S/o.Kesavan made in BDFGISSV No.90 of 2013 dated 29.03.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. For the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Murugan (a) Nondi Murugan, S/o.Kesavan made in BDFGISSV No.90 of 2013 dated 29.03.2013, 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. 7. The present order is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and shall not have any bearing upon connected criminal pending cases.