P.D.Dinakaran, J.: This petition is filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in detention order in Memo No.51 BDGIS/V/2005, dated 17.2.2005, on the file of first respondent to direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner Sekar alias Karadi Sekar who has been detained in Central Prison, Chennai-3, vide detention order in Memo No.51/BDFGIS/V/2005 dated 17.2.2005, before this Court and set aside the order of detention and set him at liberty. 2. The ground case is said to have taken place on 13.2.2005. On that day, at about 10.00 hrs., one Jayaprakash was proceeding at the junction of M.S. Koil Street and Veerasamy Street. At the same time, Ramu and Sekar alias Karadi Sekar wrongfully restrained Jayaprakash and asked for money. Since Jayaprakash said that he had no money, Ramu voluntarily took away Rs.50 from the pocket of Jayaprakash and when he raised a hue and cry, Ramu rushed to stab him, thereby causing bleeding injury. On hearing the hue and cry of Jayaprakash, the public who were at the spot gathered together and immediately Ramu and Sekar rushed to the nearby cool drinks shop, picked up the bottles and hurled the same against public, thereby causing panic situation and traffic dislocation. On the complaint lodged by Jayaprakash, a case was registered in Crime No.350 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Secs.341, 324, 392, 307 and 506(2), I.P.C., on the file of N-1 Royapuram Police Station. Taking note of the above case as ground case as well as six adverse cases of alike nature, the order of detention was passed by the detaining authority. Hence, the above petition. 3. The only point argued on behalf of the petitioner is that even though in the F.I.R., which is found at page No.39 of the booklet, the complainant had mentioned the names of the accused as Ramu and Karadi Sekar, in the statement given by the Doctor at page No.122 of the booklet and in the Accident Register at page No.124 of the booklet, it is mentioned that two unknown persons had assaulted the complainant, which shows the non-application of mind by the detaining authority. 4. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel, the above discrepancy, which is apparent on the face of the record, discloses the non-application of mind by the detaining authority. 4. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel, the above discrepancy, which is apparent on the face of the record, discloses the non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Hence, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and the same is quashed. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.