3.After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who vehemently opposed the prayer sought for by the petitioner, we find that the impugned detention order is vitiated on nonapplication of mind and in paragraph 4 of the order, the detaining authority states that he is aware of the detenu in remand in respect of four cases on the file of SRMC Police Station and he has not moved any bail application. However, he proceeds to refer to an order passed by the Principal District Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.No.3177 of 2018, which is a different case in respect of a different accused and in which, it was observed that bail has been granted. From page 252 of the booklet, in which copy of the bail order dated 06.07.2018 has been enclosed, we find that there are three petitioners in the bail application and bail has been granted only in respect of the third petitioner, who is the third accused and in respect of the 1st and 2nd petitioners (A1 and A2), the petition was dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, the detaining authority did not apply his mind and his inference that in a similar case, bail has been granted, is not correct. That apart, there is a conclusion that there is a possibility of the detenue coming only on bail, which conclusion is also on account of non-application of mind, because the detaining authority has specifically admitted that the detenue has not moved any bail application.
