Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu himself. 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.519/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 25.07.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. F-1, Chintadripet Police Station, Crime No.258 of 2013 Sections 457 and 380 IPC 2. F-1, Chintadripet Police Station, Crime No.414 of 2013 Sections 457 and 380 IPC 3. F-1, Chintadripet Police Station, Crime No.437 of 2013 Section 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 08.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, F-1, Chintadripet Police Station in Crime No.641 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 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 when there is no bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, nor by the relatives of the detenu, there is no imminent possibility of him being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without any supporting material. 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 submission. 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.... The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Nataraj @ Nethili are taking action to take him out on bail in F-1, Chindadripet Police Station Cr.Nos.258/2013, 414/2013 and 437/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court.” A close reading of the entire booklet, it is noticed that the detaining authority has taken a decision on 25.07.2013 to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out by filing application in respect of Crime Nos.258 of 2013, 414 of 2013 and 437 of 2013, 1st to 3rd adverse cases, which fact does not find place in the Special Report annexed at Page No.140 of the booklet and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner, 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 1st respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Nataraj @ Nethhili, S/o. Namasivayam, made in Memo No.519/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 25.07.2013, 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.