Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent on 11.7.2009 whereby the petitioner detenu Prabhu @ Mathi @ Mathivanan was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made that the petitioner is involved in four adverse cases namely (1) H1 Washermenpet PS Cr.No.359/2007 registered under Sec.384 r/w 34 IPC; (2) Kovai Sulur PS Cr.No.481/2008 under Sec.302 of IPC; (3) N2 Kasimedu PS Cr.No.182/2009 under Sec.379 IPC and (4) N2 Kasimedu PS Cr.No.183/2009 under Sec.379 IPC and also the ground case in Crime No.231/2009 registered by N1 Royapuram PS under Sections 341, 336, 427, 324, 307, 397 and 506(2) IPC for an occurrence that took place on 23.6.2009, and on scrutiny of the materials available, the detaining authority after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order has made the order under challenge. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that firstly in the instant case, it is referred to in the order that the Inspector of Police seized the broken bottle pieces found scattered on the road under the cover of mahazar; but, a copy of the mahazar has not actually been given to the petitioner herein; that secondly, when the petitioner has not filed any bail application in the aforesaid ground case, it has referred to in the order that there was real possibility of the petitioner coming out on bail by filing bail application; that this was without any material much less cogent material to form an opinion; and that thirdly, as far as the recovery of weapon is concerned, the recovery mahazar as found in page 92 of the booklet would indicate that the weapon of crime has actually been recovered; but, there is no form 95 for depositing the same into Court. Fourthly, the learned Counsel took the Court to paragraph 4 of the order wherein it is stated that for the similar offence, the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, has granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.3969/2009 for B3 Fort Police Station Crime No.40/2009; but, the copy what has been supplied in page No.126 was for a different crime number, and it also refers to different bail application made before the Sessions Court and thus the copy served upon him was not one what was referred to, but it was relating to some other case, and therefore, it was misleading, and on that ground, it has got to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. As could be seen above, the order came to be passed by the authority on scrutiny of the materials available after recording subjective satisfaction that he was involved in four adverse cases and one ground case. But after looking into the materials available, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has got three grounds our of four urged by him. As far as the first ground is concerned, the order reads as follows: "The Inspector of Police seized the broken bottle pieces found scattered on the road side under the cover of mahazar." Thus it would be quite clear that it has referred to specifically a mahazar for recovery of the broken bottle pieces which were scattered on the road, and it was in the ground case. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, the booklet does not contain any copy of the mahazar what was referred to, and when it was relied on, a copy should have been served. 7. It is not in dispute that he has not filed any bail application in the ground case in Crime No.231/2009, but the authority has stated in its order that there was a real possibility of the petitioner coming out on bail. While not even an application was filed for bail, the observation made by the authority would indicate that it has been made without any basis or material much less cogent material. 8. While not even an application was filed for bail, the observation made by the authority would indicate that it has been made without any basis or material much less cogent material. 8. Added further, the authority has referred to in its order that the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, has granted bail in Crime No.40/2009 of B3 Fort Police Station in an application filed in Crl.M.P.No.3969/2009. A perusal of page 126 of the booklet would clearly indicate that the copy of the order that was furnished to the petitioner was for a different crime number, and also the application for bail was also found to be different, and thus it was actually misleading. Not only the copy referred to was not served upon him, but also some other copy was furnished and the order what was served upon him and thus it was misleading. Under the circumstances, what is not expected of in serving the copies has not been done. On the contrary, something else has been done. All the above would suffice to set aside the order since it is vitiated. 9. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent, and the petitioner detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.