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 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 967 of 2013 dated 11.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Crime No. 1807 of 2012 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 120(b), 149 IPC 2. M-2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Crime No. 946 of 2013 392 IPC 3. M-1 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Crime No. 1498 of 2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 28.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, M-1, Madhavaram Police Station in Crime No. 1505 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 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 arrived at a decision to detain the detenu taking into consideration the fact that the detenu has filed bail petition in Crime No. 1498 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur in Crl. M.P. No. 6143 of 2013 and the same is pending. The detaining authority further observed that the detenu moved a bail petition in M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Crime No. 946 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 6142 of 2013 and the same is also pending. M.P. No. 6143 of 2013 and the same is pending. The detaining authority further observed that the detenu moved a bail petition in M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Crime No. 946 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 6142 of 2013 and the same is also pending. While so, in the special report found at Page No. 150 of the booklet, it has been stated that the relatives are taking steps to take the detenu on bail by filing bail applications in Crime Nos. 1498 of 2013 and 946 of 2013. This would show that the detaining authority has taken a decision to detain the detenu 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, Vijay, S/o Shanmugam, made in BDFGISSV No. 967 of 2013 dated 11.09.2013 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.