Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the friend of the detenu. The detenu Nanda @ Nandakumar has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in C3.D.O.No.91/2013 dated 08.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Sholinghur Police Station Crime No.374/2012 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC 2. Sholinghur Police Station Crime No.488/2013 393 IPC 3. Arakkonam Town Police Station Crime No.1420/2013 341, 392, 506(ii) IPC 4. Nemili Police Station Crime No.255/2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 16.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station in Crime No.1451/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 392, 394, 397, 427, 506(ii) IPC. 3. Besides several grounds, learned for the petitioner would contend that when the detaining authority has stated about the pendency of the bail application in the ground case in Crl.O.P.No.25729/2013, his inference that the detenu will come out on bail by filing bail application in the said case before the higher court, is without application of mind and therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on this ground. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. For better understanding, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder: ''5. ... I am aware that Thiru.Nanda @ Nandakumar has moved bail application in adverse case Cr.No.1420/2013 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam in C.M.P.No.4533/2013 and it was dismissed on 23.09.2013. Further, he has moved bail application in adverse case Cr.No.1420/2013 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam in C.M.P.No.4974/2013 and he was granted bail on 30.09.2013. Further, Thiru.Nanda @ Nandakumar has filed bail application in ground case Crime No.1451/2013 before the Sessions Court, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.4042/2013 and the same was dismissed on 30.09.2013. Further, Thiru.Nanda @ Nandakumar filed another bail application in Crl.O.P.No.25729/2013 before Hon'ble High Court of Madras in ground case and the same is pending. As far as the ground case is concerned, in a similar case registered at Sathuvachari Police Station Crime No.345/2012 under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused Thiru Batchi @ Jaishankar by the Honourable High Court, Madras in Crl.O.P.No.11286/2012 on 25.05.2012. As far as the ground case is concerned, in a similar case registered at Sathuvachari Police Station Crime No.345/2012 under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused Thiru Batchi @ Jaishankar by the Honourable High Court, Madras in Crl.O.P.No.11286/2012 on 25.05.2012. As bails are being granted by courts in such cases, there is real possibility of his (Thiru.Nanda @ Nandakumar) coming out on bail, by filing bail application in the above case before the higher court in the court. 6. On a careful reading of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has stated that the detenu has filed another bail application in the ground case in Crl.O.P.No.25729/2013 before this Court and the same is pending. While so, the inference drawn by him that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application in the above case before the higher court is without application of mind. When there is a bail application already pending before this Court in the ground case, the detaining authority has mechanically averred that there is a possibility for the detenu to come out on bail by filing a bail application, on which ground, the impugned detention order is vitiated in law. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Nanda @ Nandakumar made in C3.D.O.No.91/2013 dated 08.10.2013 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.