Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV NO.1430/2013 dated 26.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 F1 Gummidipoondi Police Station, Crime No.243 of 2012 Section 147, 148, 294(b) 324 and 506 (ii) of IPC 2 F3 Arambakkam Police Station Cr.No.366/2012 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC r/w 4 of Women Harassment Act 3 F3 Arambakkam Police Station Cr.No.33/2012 294(b), 323, 307 IPC 4 F3 Arambakkam Police Station Cr.No.88/2012 294(b), 332, 353, 307 & 506(ii) IPC 5 C2 Elephantgate Police Station Cr.No.1587/2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 25.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, C2 Elephantgate Police Station in Crime No.1599 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 307, 336, 427 & 506 (ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on the ground that when a bail application is pending before this Court in Crl.M.P.No.27645 of 2013 in Crime No.1599.2013, the detaining authority has come to the conclusion by inferring that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the 5th adverse case in Cr.No.1587 of 2013 by filing bail application and in the ground case in Cr.No.1599 of 2013 by filing another bail application before the appropriate Court, which shows clear non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and hence the impugned detention order is vitiated. 4. We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. On a perusal of the Remand Order dated 26.102.013, it is seen that while the detaining authority has clearly stated in paragraph No.4 as follows:- "... 4. We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. On a perusal of the Remand Order dated 26.102.013, it is seen that while the detaining authority has clearly stated in paragraph No.4 as follows:- "... He has moved another bail application for C2 Elephantgate Police Station Cr.No.1599/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.M.P.No.27465/2013 and the same is pending...." in the same paragraph, while coming to the conclusion, he has stated as follows:- "..Hence, I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in C2 Elephantgate Police Station Cr.No.1587/2013 by filing a bail application and in C2 Elephantgate Police Station Cr.No.1599/2013 case by filing another bail application, before the appropriate court...." Hence, it is clear that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in inferring that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing another bail application before the appropriate Court, when already a bail application is pending before this Court. Therefore, on the ground of non-application of mind, the impugned detention order is unsustainable in law. 6. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in BDFGISSV NO.1430/2013 dated 26.10.2013 is set aside. The detenu – Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh @ Dinakumar, son of Kothandam is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.