Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of detenue. The detenue has been branded as an "Immoral Traffic Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in No.1001/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 14.09.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases: Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 Anti Vice Squad Crime No.69 of 2009 Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of ITP Act 2 Anti Vice Squad Crime No.77 of 2011 Sections 4(1) & 5(1)(a) of ITP Act The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 11.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Anti Vice Squad-II Police Station in Crime No.57 of 2013 for offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) of ITP Act. 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 focussed his argument on the ground that though the detaining authority relied on a similar case wherein bail was granted to an accused therein by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.4766 of 2013 and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenue coming out on bail in respect of Crime No.57 of 2013, ground case, but grounds raised for grant of bail in the said similar case was entirely different from the present case. Moreover, accused therein had no previous case and investigation also stood completed, whereas such is not the position with the present detenue. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority, by stating that in the similar case registered at Anti Vice Squad, Chennai in Crime No.86 of 2013 for offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a), 6(1) and 7(1) of ITP Act, bail was granted to the accused therein by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.4766 of 2013, inferred that there is a real possibility of detenue being enlarged on bail in the event of filing any bail application in respect of Crime No.57 of 2013, ground case. A perusal of the booklet at Page No.68, annexure of bail order, relied on by the detaining authority, which was granted in the similar case would go to show that bail was considered therein due to suffering of the accused from jaundice and a certificate in that regard was also produced; further consideration was that of accused, having no previous antecedent and also based on completion of investigation. But, in the case on hand, investigation is at the initial stage in respect of the ground case and the detenue also has previous conviction. Therefore, non application of mind of detaining authority is apparent in treating the ground case as similar to that of one relied on by them. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenue Shanthi, W/o.Jayachandran, made in No.1001/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 14.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenue, who is detained at the Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case.