Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. Petitioner is the wife of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 31.07.2013 made in Memo No.562/BDFGISSV/2013, passed by the 2nd respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a ‘Goonda' and detained under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 31.07.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 H-8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station – Cr.No.17 of 2006 380 IPC 2 H-8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station – Cr.No.583 of 2007 379 IPC 3 H-8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station – Cr.No.799 of 2007 380 IPC 4 H-8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station – Cr.No.844 of 2007 457 and 380 IPC 5 H-8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station – Cr.No.8 of 2008 380 IPC 6 H-8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station – Cr.No.146 of 2008 457 and 380 IPC 7 H-8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station – Cr.No.204 of 2008 457 and 380 IPC 8 H-8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station – Cr.No.376 of 2012 457 and 380 IPC 9 H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station – Cr.No.701 of 2013 341, 384 and 506(i) IPC 3. In para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenu is also involved in the commission of offence, which took place on 10.07.2013 morning at 09.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, New Washermenpet Police Station in-charge H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station, in Crime No.733 of 2013, for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392, and 397 r/w. 506(ii) IPC. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on the same day and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai, and remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition. 4. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition. 4. Amidst several grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of detention, he mainly raised a ground that the detaining authority has not arrived at his subjective satisfaction and likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail indulging in such activities prejudicial to the public order when there was no bail application moved in the 9th adverse case in Crime No.701 of 2013 and therefore, there is total non application of mind and the detention order is liable to be quashed on that ground. 5. We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us. 6. On a perusal of the impugned order of detention, it is seen that the detaining authority has stated in paragraph No.4 as follows:- "I am also aware that Thiru. Kumar, who was remanded in H-8, Thiruvottiyur police station Crime No.733 of 2013 and H-5 New Washermenpet police station Crime No.701 of 2013, has filed a bail petition in H-8, Thiruvottiyur police station Crime No.733 of 2013 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, vide Crl.M.P.No.1834 of 2013 and the same is pending. He has not moved bail application for H-5 Crime No.701 of 2013 and relatives are taking action to file bail application before appropriate Court." 7. Crime No.701 of 2013 registered by H-5 New Washermenpet police station relates to the 9th adverse case and Crime No.733 of 2013 registered by H-8, Thiruvottiyur police station relates to the ground case. After observing the aforesaid statement, the detaining authority went on to state that in cases similar to the one registered by both the H-5 New Washermenpet police station and H-8, Thiruvottiyur police station, bails were granted by the Court. After observing the aforesaid statement, the detaining authority went on to state that in cases similar to the one registered by both the H-5 New Washermenpet police station and H-8, Thiruvottiyur police station, bails were granted by the Court. When the detaining authority himself has in the previous part of the paragraph stated that the detenu has not moved a bail application for H-5 New Washermenpet police station Crime No.701 of 2013 and that the relatives are taking action to file bail application before the appropriate Court, we failed to understand as to how the detaining authority has inferred that the detenu shall file the bail application and that in similar cases Court has already granted bail and thus this detenu shall also come out on bail. In other words, though the detaining authority has referred to the bail petition being filed only with regard to the ground case and that there is no bail petition in respect of the 9th adverse case, he has arrived at the subjective satisfaction only with regard to the ground case and there is no material available before him to come to the conclusion that the detenu shall come out on bail in the 9th adverse case as well. Therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed not only on the ground of non application of mind but also on the ground of subjective satisfaction. 8. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely Kumar, made in Memo No.562/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 31.07.2013, 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.