Judgment :- G.M. AKBAR ALI, J. 1. The wife of the detenu is the petitioner herein. The detenu came to the adverse notice of the authorities in two adverse cases namely one in Crime No. 683 of 2011 of C2 Elephant Gate Police Station for an offence under Section 399 I.P.C. and another in Crime No. 767 of 2011 of C3 Seven Wells Police Station for offences under Section 341, 384 Section 341, 384 and 506(ii) I.P.C. On 11.7.2011, the detenu indulged in criminal activities and thereby committed offences under Sections 341 , 385 Sections 341 , 385 , 324, 336, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and a case has been registered in Crime No. 770 of 2011 by C 3 Seven Wells Police Station. On the same day, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The authorities found that the detenu is habitually committing such crime and as such he is a “Goonda” as contemplated under Section 2 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act. 14 of 1982, and placed all the materials before the 2nd respondent herein requesting him to pass a Detention Order. The 2nd respondent, on a perusal of the entire materials, came to the subjective satisfaction and passed an Order of detention dated 19.7.2011 and the same was also intimated to the detenu. Challenging that Detention Order, wife of the detenu is before this Court. 2. Mr. M. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that, the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind for arriving at a subjective satisfaction while passing the Detention Order. Learned counsel drew our attention to paragraph 4 of the Detention Order wherein it is stated that, “4. ...... .... It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered under Sections 294(b), 453, 336 and 307 I.P.C. at. J6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Cr.. No. 271 of 2011, bail was granted in Crl. M.P. No. 3549 of 2011 by the Court of II Additional Sessions, Chennai.” and pointed out that the Criminal M.P. Number shown in the Detention Order does not tally with the copy of the order furnished in the booklet at Page No. 116. J6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Cr.. No. 271 of 2011, bail was granted in Crl. M.P. No. 3549 of 2011 by the Court of II Additional Sessions, Chennai.” and pointed out that the Criminal M.P. Number shown in the Detention Order does not tally with the copy of the order furnished in the booklet at Page No. 116. - Learned counsel pointed out that the bail order found in the booklet was one passed in Crl. M.P. No. 3543 of 2011 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, whereas the detaining authority has mentioned that bail was granted in Crl. M.P. No. 3549 of 2011 by the Court of II Additional Sessions, Chennai. According to the counsel, there is no explanation from the authorities for the error committed in the Detention Order which shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 3. Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that the Criminal M.P. Number in the bail granted case is only 3543 of 2011 and not 3549 of 2011 and the Court which granted the bail is the Principal Sessions Judge and not the II Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, as mentioned by the Detaining Authority. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either, side and perused the materials made available on record. 5. While considering the bail application the detaining authority has stated that the detenu has moved bail application in Crime No. 770 of 2011 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, and the same is pending. However, the detaining authority has stated that in a similar case in Crime No. 271 of 2011 bail was granted in Crl. M.P. No. 3549 of 2011 by the Court of II Additional Sessions, Chennai, and therefore, he came to the conclusion that there is every likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. In the bail order available in the booklet it is seen that, the order was passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl. M.P. No. 3543 of 2011 and, therefore, there is an error on the factual aspect of the material available before the detaining authority while passing the Detention Order. It shows the non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority which vitiates the Order of detention and needs our interference. 6. M.P. No. 3543 of 2011 and, therefore, there is an error on the factual aspect of the material available before the detaining authority while passing the Detention Order. It shows the non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority which vitiates the Order of detention and needs our interference. 6. In the result, the impugned Order of detention in Memo No. 163/BDFGISSV/2011 dated 19.7.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent herein is set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Muthu @ Rowdy Muthu, S/o. Gopal is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise required in connection with any other case.