Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife 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. 958/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 10.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. D-1, Chengalput Town Police Station, Crime No.1502 of 2012 Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC 2. N-1, Royapuram Police Station, Crime No. 638 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC 3. N-1, Royapuram Police Station, Crime No. 809 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 01.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, N-1, Royapuram Police Station in Crime No. 817 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 336, 392 r/w 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 has 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. 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. The Sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Tr. Ranganathan are taking action take him on bail by filing bail application in N-1, Royapuram Police Station Cr. The Sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Tr. Ranganathan are taking action take him on bail by filing bail application in N-1, Royapuram Police Station Cr. No. 638 of 13 and 809 of 2013 before the Court.” A close reading of the entire booklet, it is noticed that the detaining authority has taken a decision on 10.09.2013 to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out by filing applications in respect of Crime Nos.638 and 809 of 2013, 2nd and 3rd adverse cases, without any valid material in support thereof and 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, Ranganathan, S/o Santhanam, made in Memo No. 958/ BDFGISSV/2013 dated 10.09.2013, 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. 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.