Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No. 1068/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 21.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. B-1 North Beach Town Police Station Crime No. 1854 of 2012 147, 148 & 302 IPC 2. B-1 North Beach Town Police Station Crime No. 272 of 2013 341, 294(b), 323, 384 and 506(ii) IPC 3. B-1 North Beach Town Police Station Crime No. 427 of 2013 341, 336, 427, 394, 397 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, N.1 Royapuram Police Station in Crime No. 817 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that though the detaining authority has stated in the detention order that in a case registered in Crime No. 393 of 2013, bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 5411 of 2013 on 30.04.2013, a copy of the said order has not been furnished to the detenu, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. On a careful reading of the detention order and on scrutiny of the booklet, it is seen that though the detaining authority, in paragraph 4 of the detention order has stated that in a case registered at N. 1 Royapuram Police Station in Crime No. 393 of 2013 under Sections 341, 323, 384, 427, 336, 337 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 5411 of 2013 on 30.04.2013, a copy of the same is not furnished to the detenu to enable him make an effective representation for redressal of his grievance. M.P. No. 5411 of 2013 on 30.04.2013, a copy of the same is not furnished to the detenu to enable him make an effective representation for redressal of his grievance. For better understanding, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder: "4. I am aware that Thiru. Surendrababu is in remand in N. 1 Royapuram Police Station Cr. No. 863 of 2013 and he moved a bail application for N. 1 Royapuram Police Station Cr. No. 863 of 2013 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 11869 of 2013 and the same is pending. In a case registered at N.1 Royapuram Police Station Cr. No. 393 of 2013 registered under Sections 341, 323, 384, 427, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 5411 of 2013 on 30.04.2013. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in N.1 Royapuram Police Station Cr. No. 863 of 2013, since in similar cases, bails are granted by the Courts after a lapse of time." Thus, the opportunity of making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied to the detenu and the same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Surendrababu made in BDFGISSV No. 1068 of 2013 dated 21.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 7. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.