Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the daughter of the detenue. The detenue has been branded as a "Drug Offender" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the first respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.1304 of 2013 dated 12.10.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. N.2 Kasimedu Police Station, Crime No.90/2012 4(1-A) of TNP Act 2. N.2 Kasimedu Police Station, Crime No. 448 of 2013 4(1-A) of TNP Act and 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act 3. N.2 Kasimedu Police Station Crime No. 614/2013 4(1-A) of TNP Act 4. N.2 Kasimedu Police Station Cr.No.687/2013 8(c) r/w 20(b) NDPS Act The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 5.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, N.2 Kasimedu Police Station in Crime No.835 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. 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 detenue, nor by the relatives of the detenue in Crime No.835 of 2013, there is no imminent possibility of her 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 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 detenue 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 detenue being enlarged on bail in Crime No.835 of 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 also aware that Tmt.Shanthi who was remanded in N.2 Kasimedu P.S.Cr.No.835/2013. I am also aware that Tmt.Shanthi who was remanded in N.2 Kasimedu P.S.Cr.No.835/2013. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Tmt.Shanthi are taking action to take him on bail in N.2 Kasimedu P.S.Cr.No.835/2013 by filing bail application before appropriate Court. ..." A close reading of the entire booklet would show that the detaining authority has taken a decision to detain the detenue on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail her out by filing application in respect of Crime No.835 of 2013 (ground case), whereas in the special report found at Page Nos.130 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 detenue, namely, Santhi, wife of Muthuvel, made in BDFGISSV No.1304/2013 dated 12.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenue, who is detained in the Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case.