Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife 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 Memo No. 880/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 03.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-6 Avadi Police Station Crime No. 1498 of 2013 341, 384 & 506 (ii) IPC 2. T-10 Thirumullaivoyal Police Station Crime No. 1000 of 2013 341, 294(b), 392, r/w 506(ii) IPC 3. T-2 Ambathur Police Station Crime No. 1045 of 2013 341, 294(b), 323 & 307 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 13.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-2 Ambathur Estate Police Station in Crime No. 1051 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 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 arguments on the ground that the on documents relied on by the detaining authority to pass the impugned detention order had not been supplied to the detenu and hence, this would vitiate the detention order. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 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, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein, in paragraph 4 it is stated thus: "4. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered under Section 307 IPC at K-3 Aminjikaran Police Station Crime No. 1165 of 2012 bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai, in Crl. M.P. No. 8184 of 2012.'' 6. On a close reading of the entire booklet, it is noticed that such an order made in Crl. M.P. No. 8184 of 2012 by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, granting bail to a case registered for an offence under Section 307 IPC. M.P. No. 8184 of 2012.'' 6. On a close reading of the entire booklet, it is noticed that such an order made in Crl. M.P. No. 8184 of 2012 by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, granting bail to a case registered for an offence under Section 307 IPC. Registered in Crime No. 1165 of 2012 at K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station is not available in the entire booklet. In the absence of any such document, the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority that bail is being granted by the Courts in similar cases and therefore, this detenu also would get bail can only be termed as a presumption. Thus, it is clear that without any valid material in support thereof and the detaining authority has passed the impugned order of detention in a 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 hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Samson, S/o Aloysius, made in Memo No. 880/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 03.09.2013 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.