Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J.- 1. Petitioner is the friend of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 19.08.2013 made in Memo No.726/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 19.08.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 S-9 Pazhavanthangal Police Station – Cr.No.237 of 2011 379 IPC 2 S-7 Madipakkam Police Station – Cr.No.1504 of 2011 379 IPC 3 S-7 Madipakkam Police Station – Cr.No.1500 of 2011 379 IPC 4 S-9 Pazhavanthangal Police Station – Cr.No.449 of 2011 379 IPC 5 S-7 Madipakkam Police Station – Cr.No.1497 of 2011 379 IPC 6 S-7 Madipakkam Police Station – Cr.No.1498 of 2011 379 IPC 7 S-7 Madipakkam Police Station – Cr.No.1499 of 2011 379 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 the offence, which took place on 16.07.2013 at about 11.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, S-7 Madipakkam Police Station, in Crime No.1461 of 2013, for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on the same day and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, 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 attack the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his argument that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in arriving at a satisfaction to detain the detenu by observing that the bail application moved by the detenu in Crime No.1461 of 2013 is pending before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu and further inferring that there is very likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application for the same Crime No.1461 of 2013 and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated in law. 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:- "4. I am aware that Thiru. Selvam is in remand in S-7 Madipakkam Police Station Crime No.1461 of 2013 and he has moved a bail application for S-7 Madipakkam Police Station Crime No.1461 of 2013 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.No.3237 of 2013 and the same is pending. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at M-8 Sathankadu police station Crime No.272 of 2011 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Hon'ble High Court at Madras in Crl.O.PNo.15965 of 2011. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail by filing bail application for S-7 Madipakkam Police Station Crime No.1461 of 2013 since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time....." 7. From the reading of the above, it is clear that the detaining authority has mentioned that the detenu has moved a bail application in Crime No.1461 of 2013 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.No.3237 of 2013 and the same is pending. From the reading of the above, it is clear that the detaining authority has mentioned that the detenu has moved a bail application in Crime No.1461 of 2013 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.No.3237 of 2013 and the same is pending. While so, the detaining authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application for the very same Crime No.1461 of 2013. When the bail application moved by the detenu is pending before the concerned Sessions Court, it is not incumbent on the detaining authority to arrive the satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application, which would clearly shows the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in clamping the order of detention against the detenu. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a unreported decision of this Court in H.C.P.No.487 of 2008, dated 22.07.2008. On consideration of every material and the order in question, we have no hesitation to hold that the order was passed by the detaining authority with total non-application of mind and therefore the impugned detention order cannot be allowed to stand. 8. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely Selvam, made in Memo No.726/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 19.08.2013, 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.