ORDER : S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition, challenging the detention order passed against her Sister's son Kumaran, S/o. Selvarasu, by the first respondent, vide proceedings 914/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 17.08.2016 . 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 3. Though, several grounds were raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus on the ground that no bail applications have been filed in Crime No. 719/2016 detaining authority has stated that the relatives of the detenu were taking steps to file bail application in the above case, in which case there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The learned counsel pointed out that to arrive at such a conclusion, there was no material placed before the detaining authority at all. 4. The learned Additional Public prosecutor would submit that in the Special report submitted by the Inspector of Police, there is a statement to the effect that the relatives of the detenu were taking steps to file bail application seeking bail in connection with the case in Crime No. 719/2016 5. We have considered the above submissions. Admittedly, as on the date of passing of the detention order, no bail application has been filed by the detenu seeking bail in Crime No. 719/2016 on the file of N-2 Kasimedu Police Station. Though it is alleged that his relatives were taking steps to file an application for bail, there were no materials available before the detaining authority, except the report of the Inspector of Police. Even the report of the Inspector of Police does not spell out as to how he came to know that the relatives were taking steps to file application seeking bail. Full details as to who are those relatives, who were taking steps to file bail application also have not been mentioned. Thus, in our considered view, without making proper application of mind relating to these facts, the detaining authority has passed the detention order. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the same. 6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 17.08.2016, passed by the first respondent is set aside. Thus, in our considered view, without making proper application of mind relating to these facts, the detaining authority has passed the detention order. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the same. 6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 17.08.2016, passed by the first respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.