Judgment :- P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J. All the three Habeas Corpus Petitions are connected and they are being disposed of by a 2. HCP No.2174 of 2009 has been filed by the wife of the detenu Loghu @ Loganathan, who has been detained by the first respondent as a goonda by his order dated 24.10.2009 made in his proceedings Memo No.108/BDFGISSV/2009. HCP No.2175 of 2009 has been filed by the wife of the detenu Vasanth, who has been detained by the first respondent as a goonda by his order dated 24.10.2009 made in his proceedings Memo No.110/BDFGISSV/2009. HCP No.2176 of 2009 has been filed by the wife of the detenu Prabhu @ Pattuvari, who has been detained by the first respondent as a goonda by his order dated 24.10.2009 made in his proceedings Memo No.109/BDFGISSV/2009. 3. In all the three cases of detention, the detaining authority has referred to two adverse cases, namely 1) Cr.No.18/2009 registered on the file of M.1 Madhavaram Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 75 of the City Police Act relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place on 23.01.2009, which resulted in the conviction of all the detenus with a fine of Rs.400/-each and 2) Cr.No.517/2009 registered on the file of the very same police station for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 379 IPC, which was subsequently altered into a case for offences punishable under Sections 341, 307 and 302 IPC relating to an occurrence that took place on 27.09.2009 and the ground case in Cr.No.520/2009 registered on the file of M.1 Madhavaram Police Station for alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC relating to an alleged occurrence that took place on 28.09.2009. Expressing subjective satisfaction that all the three detenus were habitually committing offences made punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code and that their presence at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detaining authority, namely the first respondent has clamped the orders of detention impugned in these petitions. The detaining authority has also expressed his subjective satisfaction that though the detenus had not filed any bail application in the pending cases, namely the second adverse case and the ground case, there was real possibility of their coming out on bail by filing bail applications. 4. The detaining authority has also expressed his subjective satisfaction that though the detenus had not filed any bail application in the pending cases, namely the second adverse case and the ground case, there was real possibility of their coming out on bail by filing bail applications. 4. Though the orders of detention are impugned on a number of grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly relies on the contention that there are materials to show that the ground case itself has been foisted with the object of clamping an order of detention under Act 14 of 1982. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the fact that the copies of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant in the ground case furnished to the detenus concerned in all the three habeas corpus petitions do not contain the signature of the de-facto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the absence of signature in the copy of the complaint in the ground case found in the paper book supplied to all the detenus will make it clear that the case itself was foisted a day after the registration of the second adverse case and that from the same it is obvious that the ground case itself was registered for the purpose of detaining the detenus as goondas under Act 14 of 1982. It is his further contention that the detaining authority has not adverted to the fact that the copies supplied did not contain the signature of the de-facto complainant and the same will amount to an omission on the part of the detaining authority to consider a material aspect. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents on the above said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor drew our attention to the last portion of the printed format of the first information report, wherein it has been mentioned in bracket that the complaint was signed by the de-facto complainant and contended that the case was registered based on a signed complaint and that some how or other the same does not reflect in the xerox copies furnished in the paper book. 6. 6. We have gone through the copies of the first information report and the xerox copies of the original complaint, found in the paper books furnished to all the detenus, in the ground case. In all the paper books, though the signatures of the police officer who registered the case and the police officer who certified it to be true copies are found, the signature of the de-facto complainant is conspicuously absent. Of course it is true that the copy of the first information report in the ground case does contain a recital that the complaint was signed by the de-facto complainant S.Sankar. But there is absence of signature of the de-facto complainant in the first information report acknowledging receipt of a copy of the first information report. The absence of signature of the de-facto complainant in the copies of original complaint and the first information report in the ground case itself will probablise the case of the petitioners that there is reason to believe that the ground case could have been foisted for the purpose of clamping the orders of detention and also that there was non-application of mind to the above said important aspect on the part of the detaining authority, which alone shall vitiate the order of detention. 7. For the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that the orders of detention in all the three cases, namely HCP Nos.2174, 2175 and 2176 of 2009 are vitiated and they are liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, all the three habeas corpus petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of the first respondent in 108/BDFGISSV/2009, 110/BDFGISSV/2009 and 109/BDFGISSV/2009, all dated 24.10.2009 are set aside. The detenus (Loghu @ Loganathan, Vasanth and Prabhu @ Pattuvari) are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other case.