Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the friend 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 second respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.952/2013 dated 10.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sl. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J-10, Semmancherry Police Station, Crime No.853/2013 302 IPC @ 302, 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 11.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J-10, Semmancherry Police Station in Crime No.857 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 384 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.857 of 2013 and the same was dismissed as early as 04.09.2013, the detaining authority has stated that the said bail application is pending. 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.Kathiresan is in remand in J-10 Semmancherry Police Station Crime Nos.853/2013 and 857/2013 and he has moved a bail application for J-10 Semmancherry Police Station Crime No.857/2013 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in Crl.M.P.No.8419/2013 and the same is pending. ..................................................................................Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in J-10 Semmancherry Police Station Crime No.857/2013 and there is a real possibility of his coming out oin bail in J-10 Semmancherry Police Station Cr.No.853/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court, since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time......” 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 there is possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case as the bail application filed by him in Crl.M.P.No.8419 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur is pending. But the fact remains that the said bail application has already been dismissed on 04.09.2013 and a copy of the said dismissal order has also been annexed in the booklet at page no.171. The dismissal of the said bail application has not been taken into consideration by the detaining authority at the time of clamping the order of detention and the same would vitiate the detention order. On this ground alone, the order of detention is vitiated and liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Kathiresan, S/o. Sivadhasa Nayar, made in BDFGISSV No.952/2013 dated 10.09.2013 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.