Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother 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.1471/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 29.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Crime No.1138/2011 454 and 380 IPC 2. V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Crime No.2740/2012 457, 397 r/w. 34 IPC 3. K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Crime No.1826/2013 379 IPC 4. K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Crime No.1253/2013 457 and 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 02.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station in Crime No.2201 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 384, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that the bail petition moved by the detenu in the ground case before learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.13407 of 2013, was dismissed on 28.10.2013. However, without taking into consideration the above fact, the detaining authority, by inferring himself that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, as in a similar case bail was granted to another accused, has passed the impugned order on 29.10.2013, i.e., on the very next day of dismissal of the bail petition. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is erroneous. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed this petition by stating that the detenu has committed a serious offence and it is not desirable to release the detenu, as his free movement in the society will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 5. In the instant case, though it is stated that bail was granted in a similar case, we find that the bail petition of the detenu in respect of the ground case was dismissed on 28.10.2013 and the detaining authority has passed the impugned order on the very next day i.e., on 29.10.2013. 5. In the instant case, though it is stated that bail was granted in a similar case, we find that the bail petition of the detenu in respect of the ground case was dismissed on 28.10.2013 and the detaining authority has passed the impugned order on the very next day i.e., on 29.10.2013. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is baseless and without any supporting material, which shows the total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Prabakaran, S/o. Dharmalingam, made in Memo No.1471/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 29.10.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.