Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of 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.1256/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 09.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-3, Korattur Police Station, Crime No.384 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC 2. T-3, Korattur Police Station, Crime No.864 of 2013 Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Woman Harassment Act and 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC 3. T-3, Korattur Police Station, Crime No.1542 of 2013 Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 448, 397 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992 4. T-3, Korattur Police Station, Crime No.1544 of 2013 Sections 341, 384 and 506 (ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 04.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-3, Korattur Police Station in Crime No.1551 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 506(ii) and 397 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 has mainly focused his argument on the ground that though bail was granted to the detenu in respect of Crime No.1551 of 2013, ground case, sureties have not been offered by him and there is no bail applications filed on behalf of the detenu nor by the relatives of the detenu in respect of Crime Nos.1542 and 1544 of 2013, 3rd and 4th adverse cases. There is no imminent possibility of him being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without application of mind. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. There is no imminent possibility of him being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without application of mind. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 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 and health, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No.4 of the order: “4....Hence, I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in T-3 Korattur Police Station Crime Nos.1542/2013 and 1544/2013 by filing bail applications before the appropriate court since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time and he may come out on bail in T-3, Korattur Police Station Crime No.1551/2013 by offering sureties...” A careful scrutiny of the impugned order itself shows that the detenu has not filed any bail application against Crime Nos.1542 and 1544 of 2013. In a case where bail was already granted to the detenu in respect of Crime No.1551 of 2013 on the file of T-3, Korattur Police Station, the detenu has not till now executed any sureties so as to come out on bail. Therefore, there is no likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail and the ground of imminent possibility does not arise in this case and the detaining authority has 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 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Kandhan, S/o. Govindaraj, made in Memo No.1256/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 09.10.2013, 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. 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, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude authorities concerned 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.