Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent on 19.11.2009 whereby the detenu Sankar who is son of the petitioner was ordered to be detained under Act 14 of 1982 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 detenu is involved in eight adverse cases namely (1)Chennai District, T-3, Korattur Police Station, Cr.No.168/2008 under section 379 and 392 IPC; (2)Chennai District, T-3, Korattur Police Station, Cr.No.527/2008 under section 379 and 392 IPC; (3) Chennai District, T3, Korattur Police Station, Cr.No.668/2008 under section 379 and 392 IPC; (4) Chennai District, T-3, Korattur Police Station, Cr.No.799/2008 under section 379 and 392 IPC; (5) Chennai District, T-3, Korattur Police Station, Cr.No.317/2009 under section 379 and 392 IPC; (6) Chennai District, T-3, Korattur Police Station, Cr.No.194/2009 under section 379 and 392 IPC; (7) Chennai District, T-3, Korattur Police Station, Cr.No.542/2009 under section 379 and 392 IPC; (8) Chennai District, T-3, Korattur Police Station, Cr.No.886/2009 under section 379 and 392 IPC; and also a ground case in Crime No.896/2009 registered by Chennai District, T-3, Korattur Police Station under sections 341, 336, 427, 506(ii), 307 and 397 IPC for the occurrence that took place on 27.10.2009, 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 the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel raised two points which according to him are suffice to set aside the order. The learned counsel took the Court to the order of detention where it was mentioned in page 6 para 2 that Korattur Police has registered eight cases in Crime Nos. 168/08, 527/08, 668/08, 799/08, 317/09, 542/09, 886/09 and 896/09 against the detenu and the name of the detenu was mentioned as Sankar but in the translated Tamil version of the same which was supplied to the detenu, the name of the detenu was shown as Ravi. Therefore, it is highly doubtful whether the detention order came to be passed as against the detenu or not. Therefore, it is highly doubtful whether the detention order came to be passed as against the detenu or not. Secondly, the learned counsel would add that it is true that the detenu has made bail application in the adverse cases but no bail application is filed in the ground case in Crime No.896/2009. On the contrary, the detaining authority has referred to in the order that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application which was without any material much less cogent material. Therefore, on the above ground, the detention order is vitiated and it has got to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring authority, the detaining authority has made the order under challenge after recording subjective satisfaction and a copy of the order copy was also served upon the detenu. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the adverse cases were registered by the Korattur Police Station against the detenu by name Sankar and in the English version in page 6 in paragraph 2 of the detention order, the name of the detenu was found to be correct but in the Tamil version the name of the detenu was found as Ravi. Thus, it was actually misleading and not a correct translated version and it does not enable the detenu who is conversation in Tamil language to understand the same. Further, it is an admitted position that the detenu has not moved for bail in the ground case in Crime No.896/2009 on the file of Korattur Police Station though he has moved bail applications for the other adverse cases. It is also pertinent to point out that the detaining authority in his order has stated that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail while no bail application was filed before the Court of criminal law. The observation made by the detaining authority is only an expression of impression, that too, without any basis whatsoever. Before making such an observation, the authority should have looked into whether there is material muchless cogent material, but no material was placed before him. Under such circumstances, the said observation is not warranted. The observation made by the detaining authority is only an expression of impression, that too, without any basis whatsoever. Before making such an observation, the authority should have looked into whether there is material muchless cogent material, but no material was placed before him. Under such circumstances, the said observation is not warranted. Therefore, on the above grounds, the order is vitiated and it has got to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Habeas corpus petition is allowed, setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.