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.968/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 11.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J4 Kotturpuram Police Station Crime No.439/2011 147, 148, 341, 385, 294(b), 326, 307, 336, 506(ii), 120(b), 34 IPC 2. J6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Crime No.908/2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 30.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J-9 Thuraipakkam Police Station in Crime No.1476/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 392, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly pleaded that in respect of the second adverse case in Crime No.908/2013, the detenu was only a witness, but he has been shown as an accused. Therefore, he would contend that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, 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. To deny the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no counter by the respondents. 5. A careful scrutiny of the detention order and the grounds raised by the petitioner would show that in the second adverse case in Crime No.908/2013, the detenu has been shown as an accused though he was only examined as a witness. No other document was produced by the sponsoring authority to show that the detenu has been arrayed as an accused in the said case. Therefore, it is clear that the detaining authority has not applied his mind while arriving at the subjective satisfaction of relevant material consideration. Hence, the impugned detention order is vitiated in law. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Joseph @ Minnal Joseph made in BDFGISSV No.968/2013 dated 11.09.2013, 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. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Joseph @ Minnal Joseph made in BDFGISSV No.968/2013 dated 11.09.2013, 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.