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 first respondent passed in Memo No. 1186/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 30.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. K-9, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 752 of 2013 302, 201 IPC 2. P-3, Vyasarpadi Police Station, Crime No. 1249 of 2013 341, 384, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 21.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station in Crime No. 1637 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 448, 342, 336, 427, 397, 307 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 mainly focused his argument on the ground that though the detenu has filed a bail application in respect of the ground case in Crime No. 1637 of 2013 and the same is pending, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu has not moved any bail application so far and the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take the detenu on bail by filing bail application before the appropriate Court. This clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. For the above reason, 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 has 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, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No.4 of the order:- "4. I am aware that Thiru. I am aware that Thiru. Selva @ Selvakumar is in remand in P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime No. 1637 of 2013 and he has not moved any bail application for P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime No. 1637 of 2013 so far. The sponsoring authority stated that Thiru. Selva @ Selvakumar's relatives are taking action to take him out on bail in P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Cr. No. 1637 of 2013 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 take him out on bail by filing application in respect of Crime No. 1637 of 2013 (ground case), whereas the detenu has already filed a petition for bail in the ground case in Crl. M.P. No. 12356 of 2013 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and a copy of the said bail petition has also been annexed at page no.92 of the booklet. When the bail petition filed by the detenu is pending, the detaining authority, based on the statement of the sponsoring authority, has stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take the detenu on bail in the ground case by filing bail application. This itself would show that the detaining authority has passed the impugned order of detention in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Selva @ Selvakumar, S/o Manimaran, made in Memo No. 1186/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 30.09.2013 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, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution 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.