Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Black Marketeer" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 3rd respondent passed in Cr.M.P.No.54/BM/2013 (E1) dated 05.12.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Coimbatore (Pollachi) Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department Crime No.19 of 2012 Section 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)a(ii) of E.C.Act, 1955 2. Pollachi Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department Crime No.46 of 2012 Section 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)a(ii) of E.C.Act, 1955 The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 30.10.2013 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi in Crime No.376 of 2013 for offences under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)a(ii) of E.C.Act, 1955. 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 though the detaining authority relied on a bail order granted to the co-accused, namely, Sikkandar @ Ottapal Sikkandar @ Pal Sikkandar, in respect of 1st adverse case, by the learned District Principal and Sessions Court, Coimbatore and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime No.376 of 2013, ground case, but grounds raised by the co-accused for grant of bail in the said similar case was entirely different from the present case. Moreover, bail was granted to co-accused therein on the ground of his incarceration for more than 47 days and also based on completion of investigation, whereas such is not the position with the present detenu. 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. 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 Pollachi Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department in Crime No.19 of 2012 for offences under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)a(ii) of E.C.Act, 1955, bail was granted to the co-accused against 1st adverse case by the learned District Principal and Sessions Court, Coimbatore in Cr.M.P.No.1798 of 2012, inferred that there is a real possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail in the event of filing any bail application in respect of Crime No.376 of 2013, ground case. A perusal of the booklet at Page No.57, 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 on the following reasons: “The petitioner is in custody for the past more than 47 days. Major Portion of the investigation might have been completed by now. The property is said to be recovered.” But, in the case on hand, investigation is at the initial stage in respect of the ground case and the detenu is also involved in previous cases. 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 3rd respondent, detaining the detenu Anwar @ Anwar Basha, S/o. Sulthansha, made in Cr.M.P.No.54/BM/2013 (E1) dated 05.12.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Coimbatore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.