Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the first respondent passed in Memo No.696/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 14.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Crime No.696/2013 302 IPC 2. V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Crime No.1008/2013 392 & 506(ii) IPC 3. V-6, Kolathur Police Station, Crime No.1157/2013 384 & 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 24.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station in Crime No.1056 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that when there is no bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, nor by the relatives of the detenu, there is no imminent possibility of him being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without any supporting material. For the above reason, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that the detenu has involved in serious offences and technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the likelihood of the same is prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No.4 of the order: “4. I am aware that Thiru.Suriyaprakash @ Suriya is in remand in V-4 Rajamangalam Police Station Crime Nos.1008/2013 and 1056/2013 and he has moved a bail application for V-4 Rajamangalam Police Station Crime No.1056/2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.9728/2013 and the same is pending. He has not moved any bail application for V-4 Rajamangalam Police Station Crime No.1008/2013 so far. He has not moved any bail application for V-4 Rajamangalam Police Station Crime No.1008/2013 so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Suriyaprakash @ Suriya is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for V-4 Rajamangalam Police Station Crime No.1008/2013 before the appropriate Court....” A close reading of the entire booklet would show that the detaining authority has taken a decision to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out by filing application in respect of Crime No. 1008 of 2013 (second adverse case), without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner, which shows clear non application of mind on the part of detaining authority in arriving at such conclusion. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Suriyaprakash @ Suriya, S/o.Raji, made in Memo No.696/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 14.08.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 7. However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.