Judgment 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the brother of the detenu, namely, K. Paneer @ Panneerselvam, aged 52 years, son of Karuppannan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in PBMMSEC Act/2014 (F3), C.M.P.No. 03, dated 31.07.2014, passed by the 3rd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) read with 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980), in the Central Prison, Salem, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith. 2. Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr. D. Balachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground that in paragraph No. 5 of the detention order, it is stated that the relative of the detenu is taking efforts to move bail application to take him out on bail in the case in Civil Supplies CID Unit Crime No. 44 of 2014; whereas, no material is furnished in support of the said statement in the detention order. 3. Per contra, Mr. C. Emallias, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would draw the attention of this Court to the copy of the statement recorded from one Thirumathi Yamuna, wife of Krishnan, who is admittedly co-accused in the same crime number, and submitted that the said Yamuna has stated that she is taking efforts to move bail application to take the detenu out on bail and as such, the detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegalilty or infirmity in the order of detention. 4. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record. 5. The statement of Yamuna, which is enclosed at page No. 203 of the Booklet, would reveal that she is in no way related to the detenu. The statement given by her is only in respect of the efforts taken to file bail application for her husband, by name M. Krishnan, and not for the detenu herein. 5. The statement of Yamuna, which is enclosed at page No. 203 of the Booklet, would reveal that she is in no way related to the detenu. The statement given by her is only in respect of the efforts taken to file bail application for her husband, by name M. Krishnan, and not for the detenu herein. The statement also does not refer to the name of the relative and no statement is recorded from such relative. As such, the statement so made in the detention order shows the total non-application of mind on the part of Detaining Authority. When there is no record to show that the detenu is moving bail application, there is no imminent possibility of his coming out on bail. Therefore, the Detaining Authority, in total non-application of mind, has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case. This non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority vitiates the Detention Order and the said Detention Order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.