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.1006/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 16.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-9 Pattabiram Police Station Crime No.672 of 2011 379 IPC 2. T-9 Pattabiram Police Station Crime No.336 of 2013 341, 294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) IPC 3. T-9 Pattabiram Police Station Crime No.356 of 2013 341, 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC 4. T-9 Pattabiram Police Station Crime No.769 of 2013 341, 294(b), 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 22.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-9, Pattabiram Police Station in Crime No.770 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 294(b), 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner 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. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the special report, the sponsoring authority has not stated anything about the steps taken by the relatives to take the detenu on bail. 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 point, who submits that the detenu is 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, 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. 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. A close reading of the entire booklet would show that the detaining authority has taken a decision to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to take the detenu on bail by filing application in respect of Crime No. 769 of 2013 (fourth adverse case), whereas in the special report found at Page No.101 of the booklet, the sponsoring authority has not stated anything in this regard. Therefore, the detention order has been passed without any valid material, 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, Maheswaran made in Memo No.1006/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 16.09.2013 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.