Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) 1. The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu, challenges the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the second respondent herein in Memo No.160 / BDFGISSV / 2009, whereby an order of detention came to be passed against the detenu Jagan @ Jagadeesan under the Act 14 of 1982, after terming him as "Goonda". 2. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that on the recommendation made by the sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in ten adverse cases viz. 2. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that on the recommendation made by the sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in ten adverse cases viz. (i) M.7 Manali New Town police station Crime No.216 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Indian Penal Code (ii) M.3 Puzhal police station Crime No.511 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Indian Penal Code (iii) Chengalpet Taluk Town police station Crime No.809 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Indian Penal Code (iv) M.3 Puzhal police station Crime No.695 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 511 of the Indian Indian Penal Code (v) M.5 Ennore police station Crime No.566 of 2009 for the offences under Section 457 and 380 of the Indian Indian Penal Code (vi) M.8 Sathangadu police station Crime No.472 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Indian Penal Code (vii) M.6 Manali police station Crime No.421 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Indian Penal Code(viii) M.8 Sathangadu police station Crime No.476 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Indian Penal Code (ix) M.2 M.M. Colony police station Crime No.368 of 2009 for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Indian Penal Code (x) M.4 Red Hills police station Cr.No.879 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Indian Penal Code and also a ground case in Crime No.278 of 2009 registered by M-7 Manali New Town police station for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Indian Penal Code and on scrutiny of materials, the Detaining Authority, after recording subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the detention order. 4. Assailing the order under challenge, learned counsel would submit that according to the department, on arrest in Crime No.278 of 2009, a telegraphic message alleged to have been given to the mother of the detenu on the very day. 4. Assailing the order under challenge, learned counsel would submit that according to the department, on arrest in Crime No.278 of 2009, a telegraphic message alleged to have been given to the mother of the detenu on the very day. A copy of the telegraphic message and also translated version were actually supplied to the petitioner. When they are looked into, the telegraphic message in English version, Crime No.278 of 2009 is mentioned, but in the translated version in Tamil, Crime No.279 of 2009 is given and thus, there is a discrepancy. Apart from this, it is misleading also. 5. Learned counsel would further add that no bail application was actually filed before any criminal Court. There is no basis or material much less cogent material to observe that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside. 6. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious considerations on the submissions made. 7. When the materials are looked into, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not moved any bail application before any criminal Court in Crime No.278 of 2009. When the order was actually passed, the Authority has observed that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It could be seen that it is only an impression in the mind of the Authority, which, in the considered opinion of the Court would not form subjective satisfaction, since it was without any material much less cogent material to record so and therefore, this ground would be suffice to vitiate the detention order. 8. Insofar as second ground is concerned, law requires that immediately after the arrest, it must be intimated to the relatives. A telegraphic message as found in the booklet was actually given to the mother of the detenu. When the translated copy of the same is given to the detenu, the crime number is found to be discrepant. Actually crime number in the ground case is 278 of 2009, which was found in the telegraphic message, but when the translated copy was given to the detenu, it was mentioned as Crime No.279 of 2009. It was misleading. On this ground also, the order of detention, terming the detenu as "Goonda" would be suffice to vitiate the order. 9. Actually crime number in the ground case is 278 of 2009, which was found in the telegraphic message, but when the translated copy was given to the detenu, it was mentioned as Crime No.279 of 2009. It was misleading. On this ground also, the order of detention, terming the detenu as "Goonda" would be suffice to vitiate the order. 9. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.160/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 30.11.2009. The detenu, namely, Jagan @ Jagadeesan, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.