Judgment :- (M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 18.11.2009, whereby the petitioners husband R.Chellamuthu, 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 and in particular the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in three adverse cases namely (1) Sivagangai District, Elayangudi Police Station Crime No.342/2004 under Sec.379 IPC; (2) Sivagangai District, Elayangudi Police Station Crime No.362/2004 under Sec.379 IPC and (3) Coimbatore District, Perur Police Station Crime No.270/2006 under Sectiions 450, 392, 302 IPC @ 120(B), 449, 450, 302 and 392 r/w 120(B) and 109 IPC and also in the ground case registered by B-11 Saibaba Colony Police Station in Crime No.1222/2009 under Sec.392 r/w 397 IPC for an occurrence that took place on 13.10.2009, and he was arrested on the very day, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the materials available, took the view that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and hence made the order under challenge. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel raised three grounds which, according to him, would suffice to set aside the order. Firstly, insofar as the ground case in Crime No.1222/2009, he has not moved any bail application before any Court of criminal law, and it was also a case registered under Sections 120(B), 449, 450, 302 and 392 r/w 120(B) and 109 IPC; but the authority has stated in paragraph 8 of the grounds of detention that there was a real possibility of filing a bail application and to come out on bail. This is without any material, much less cogent material. Secondly, as far as the arrest intimation was concerned, it is mentioned as if a telegraphic message was given to the father; but no such telegraphic message was given. Apart from that, no copy of the telegraphic message is also found in the booklet or supplied to the detenu. Thirdly, he was actually arrested on 13.10.2009, and also produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore; but the copy of the remand order was not supplied to him. Apart from that, no copy of the telegraphic message is also found in the booklet or supplied to the detenu. Thirdly, he was actually arrested on 13.10.2009, and also produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore; but the copy of the remand order was not supplied to him. Under the circumstances, the order 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. As could be seen above, the detaining authority after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, has made the order under challenge. As regards the ground case in Crime No.1222/2009, the detenu has not moved any bail application before any Court of criminal law. The said case was also registered for grave offences. But the authority even after recording that no bail application has been filed on his behalf so far in the ground case, has observed that there is a real possibility of filing a bail application in future and to come out on bail which is without any basis or foundation or any material, much less cogent material which the law would require. Under the circumstances, the order has become infirm. 7. Apart from the above, though it is mentioned that a telegraphic message was given to the father of the detenu regarding the arrest, no copy of the same is either found in the booklet or supplied to the detenu. 8. The materials would indicate that he was arrested on 13.10.2009, produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, and remanded to custody. But, the copy of the remand order was not supplied to the detenu so as to enable him to make an effective representation. The above grounds, in the considered opinion of the Court, would suffice to set aside the order. 9. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.