The relevant part of the Paragraph No.4 in the grounds of detentionis re-produced hereunder:-"I am aware that Thiru.[Order of the Court was made byM.V.MURALIDARAN, J. and B.GOKULDAS,J.] The petitioner is the detenu, namely, Selvakumar.The detenu wasdetained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.01 of 2016 dated17.02.2016, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f)of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in Crime No.26of 2016 on the file of Ammapettai Police Station registered for offencespunishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 386, 387, 307 I.P.C., and Section 3(1)of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act 1992 (Amended 1994).The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfaction that thedetenu conformed to the definition of "Goonda" and that his presence at largewould be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquillity andalso expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that thedetenu would come out on bail in the ground case, passed the impugned detention order.The said order is challenged in the present Habeas CorpusPetition.Though the order of detention is assailed on several grounds, thelearned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to raise anadditional ground and we permit the same.The learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that the non-application of mind on the part of theDetaining Authority is apparent from Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the grounds ofdetention, wherein the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authorityregarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the groundcase came to be expressed.The submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor inreply to the above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for thepetitioner are also heard.Selvakumar, aged 29/2016, Son of Murugaiyan was produced before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam inAmmapettai Police Station Cr.No.26/2016, u/s.294(b), 341, 386, 387, 307I.P.C., and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss)Act 1992 (Amended 1994), on 21.01.2016 and was remanded to Judicial Custody and was lodged at Sub-Jail, Papanasam as a remand prisoner till 04.02.2016and further his remand period has been extended periodically upto 18.02.2016.I am aware that Thiru.Selvakumar, Male, aged 29/2016, Son of Murugaiyan has filed a bail application in Ammapettai Police Station Cr.No.26 of 2016before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam inCr.Further bail petition filed before thePrincipal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur was dismissed in Cr.In a similar case registered in Mannargudi Town PoliceStation Cr.No.491/2013, u/s.294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) I.P.C., r/w 3(1) ofTamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act 1992 (Amended 1994) bail was granted to the accused Thiru.Babu@ Byepass Babu @ Shanmugam by the vacation Sessions Court, Tiruvarur in Cr.M.P.No.693/2013 on 15.05.2013.Hence, I am satisfied that there is a real and imminent possibility of his(Thiru.Selvakumar, Aged 29/2016, Son of Murugaiyan) coming out on bail byfiling a bail application for the above case before the Higher Court.?The highlighted portion will show that the Detaining Authority didnot apply his mind and he has made an observation which is meaningless.It isso nebulous, as it cannot be ascertained from the said part of the grounds ofdetention as to whether any bail application was pending or a bailapplication was going to be filed.The very absurd language used therein willshow total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitseven though, the bail petitions filed by the petitioner were alreadydismissed twice, the Detaining Authority proceeded with an observation thatthere was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the groundcase on the basis of the order of bail granted in respect of another case.Hence, on the ground of non-application of mind, the expression of subjectivesatisfaction regarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bailin the ground case stands vitiated and the same can be termed as ipse dixit,not supported by cogent materials.On that ground alone, the order ofdetention is liable to be set aside.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

Cited provisions: Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code