Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No. 1372/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 20.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. P-3, Vyasarpadi Police Station, Crime No. 152 of 2011 Sections 341, 307, 506(ii) IPC @ 341, 294(b), 302, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC 2. P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station, Crime No. 1698 of 2013 Sections 341, 384 and 506 (ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 05.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-3, Vyasarpadi Police Station in Crime No. 1329 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 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 in informing the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the pending bail application in respect of Crime No. 1329 of 2013 in Crl. M.P. No. 13249 of 2013 on the file of learned Principal Sessions, Chennai and the likelihood of the same being prejudicial to public order, the detaining authority has passed the impugned order. But the said bail application was already dismissed on 11.10.2013 itself prior to passing of impugned order, which shows non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, who would submit that due to commission of graver offences by the detenu, there is no need to show any leniency to him. 5. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority, by stating that the detenu has moved a bail application for P-3, Vyasarpadi Police Station in Crime No. 1329 of 2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl. 5. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority, by stating that the detenu has moved a bail application for P-3, Vyasarpadi Police Station in Crime No. 1329 of 2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 13249 of 2013 and the same is pending, inferred that there is a real possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail in the pending bail application in respect of Crime No. 1329 of 2013, ground case. A perusal of the order copy produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner would go to show that bail was already granted to the detenu by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 13249 of 2013 on 11.10.2013 itself. Therefore, non application of mind of detaining authority is apparent and 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, Syed @ Syed Abuthagir, S/o Abdul Hameed made in Memo No. 1372/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 20.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu 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.