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 the order of the second respondent passed in No.1016 of 2013 dated 16.9.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T.5 SRCM Police Station, Crime No.58/2010 380 I.P.C. 2. E.4 Abiramapuram Police Station, Cr.No. 130 of 2013 380 IPC 3. V.5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.No.1014/2013 392 IPC 4. V.5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.No.1178/2013 392 IPC 5. V.5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.No.1571/2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 30.8.2013 by the Inspector of Police, V.5 Thirumangalam Police Station in Crime No.1680 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 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 appearing 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 in Crime Nos.1014/2013, 1178/2013 and 1571/2013, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without any supporting materials. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the special report, the sponsoring authority has not stated anything in this regard. 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 in Crime Nos. 1014/2013, 1178/2013 and 1571/2013 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. 1014/2013, 1178/2013 and 1571/2013 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. I am aware that Thiru Kembu @ Kemburaj @ Raja is in remand in V5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.Nos.1014/2013, 1178/2013, 1571/2013 and 1680/2013 cases and he has moved a bail application for V5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.No.1680/2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.11317/2013 and the same is pending. He has not moved any bail application for V5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.Nos.1014/2013, 1178/2013 and 1571/2013 cases. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Tr.Kembu @ Kumburaj @ Raja are taking action to take him on bail in V5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.Nos.1014/2013, 1178/2013 and 1571/2013 cases by filing bail application before the appropriate Court. ..." 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 bail him out by filing application in respect of Crime Nos. 1014/2013, 1178/2013 and 1571/2013 (adverse cases), whereas in the special report found at Page No.117 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 second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Kembu @ Kemburaj @ Raja, son of Masilamani, made in No.1016/2013 dated 16.9.2013 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.