Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu himself is the petitioner. 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 No.1504/2013 dated 03.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 20.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, D-4, Zambazaar Police Station in Crime No.704 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner 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. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the special report, the sponsoring authority has not stated anything about the steps taken by the relatives to take the detenu on bail. 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 point, who submits that the detenu is 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 being 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. Appanraj @ Raj is in remand in D.4 Zam Bazaar Police Station Cr.Nos.651/2013, 697/2013 and 704/2013 and he has not moved any bail application for the above cases. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Appanraj @ Raj are taking action to take him on bail by filing bail application in D.4 Zam Bazaar Police Station Cr.Nos.651/2013, 697/2013 and 704/2013 before the Court.......“ 5. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Appanraj @ Raj are taking action to take him on bail by filing bail application in D.4 Zam Bazaar Police Station Cr.Nos.651/2013, 697/2013 and 704/2013 before the Court.......“ 5. From a reading of the aforesaidorder, it is clear that the detenu has not moved bail petitions in respect of Crime Nos.651/2013, 697/2013 and 704/2013 (second and third adverse cases and ground case). When that being so, the detaining authority, based on the statement of the sponsoring authority to the effect that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take the detenu on bail in the said cases, has arrived at the satisfaction that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases by filing bail application and clamped the detention order. But, in the special report found at Page No.167 of the booklet, the sponsoring authority has not stated anything in this regard. Thus, it is clear that the detaining authority, has passed the impugned detention order without any supporting material and the same is, therefore, vitiated. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Appanraj @ Raj, made in No.1504/2013 dated 03.11.2013 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.