Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a Goonda as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No. 1308/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 12.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. S-11 Tambaram Police Station Crime No. 1194 of 2011 379 IPC 2. S-6 Shankar Nagar Police Station Crime No. 493 of 2011 392 IPC 3. S-6 Shankar Nagar Police Station Crime No. 9 of 2012 379 IPC 4. J-4 Kotturpuram Police Station Crime No. 1242 of 2011 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC 5. J-4 Kotturpuram Police Station Crime No. 509 of 2013 341, 294(b), 336, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 11.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J-4, Kotturpuram Police Station in Crime No. 1107 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds, his main submission is that the detaining authority has expressed subjective satisfaction over the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail based on the bail order in the ground case as well as a similar case and copies of the said bail orders were not furnished to the detenu in the booklet and there is nothing to show that such material was placed before the detaining authority at the time of clamping the order of detention and hence it is vitiated. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that the detenu has involved in serious offences and technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 5. For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below: "4. I am aware that Thiru. Nelson is in remand in J4 Kotturpuram Police Station Cr. Nos. 509 of 2013 and 1107 of 2013 and he has not moved any bail application in J4 Kotturpuram Police Station Cr. Nos. 509 of 2013 and 1107 of 2013 so far. I am aware that Thiru. Nelson is in remand in J4 Kotturpuram Police Station Cr. Nos. 509 of 2013 and 1107 of 2013 and he has not moved any bail application in J4 Kotturpuram Police Station Cr. Nos. 509 of 2013 and 1107 of 2013 so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru. Nelson are taking action to take him on bail in J4 Kotturpuram Police Station Cr. No. 509 of 2013 and 1107 of 2013 by filing bail application before the Court. In a case registered at J.4 Kotturpuram Police Station Cr. No. 509 of 2013 registered under Sections 341, 294 (b), 336, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 5800 of 2013." 6. As seen from the extracted passage, the subjective satisfaction expressed by the detaining authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the case in which he was on remand (ground case) is based on the bail order in the same ground case in respect of some of the co-accused in Crl. M.P. No. 5800 of 2013. A copy of the said order is not found in the booklet supplied to the detenu. There is nothing to show that such material was placed before the detaining authority at the time of clamping the order of detention. Therefore, non-furnishing of the bail order in the very same ground case prevented the detenu from making effective representation and the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Nelson, S/o.Ponappan, made in Memo No. 1308/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 12.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution 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.