Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J., 1. The petitioner is the wife of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1177/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 30.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-4, Maduravoyal Police Station, Crime No.344 of 2011 Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 302 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 149 IPC 2. K-10, Koyambedu Police Station, Crime No.1139 of 2013 Sections 341, 294 (b), 324 and 506 (ii) IPC 3. K-11, C.M.B.T. Police Station, Crime No.1149 of 2013 Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 385, 427 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 20.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-10, Koyambedu Police Station in Crime No.1255 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 353, 427, 307 and 506 (ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a wrong mention of crime number against which bail was sought by the detenu in Crl.M.P.No.12435 of 2013, 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 scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the likelihood of the same is prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No.4 of the order: "4. I am aware that Thiru.Annamalai is in remand in K-10, Koyambedu Police Station Crime Nos.1139/2013 and 1255/2013 he has filed any bail application for K-10 Koyambedu Police Station Crime Nos.1255/2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, vide Crl.M.P.No.12435/2013 and the same is pending. He has not filed any bail application for K-10, Koyambedu Police Station Crime No.1139/2013 so far.” 6. He has not filed any bail application for K-10, Koyambedu Police Station Crime No.1139/2013 so far.” 6. A cursory look at the Page No. 165 of the booklet would reveal that there is a defect in indicating the correct Crime Number in the bail petition. Though in the last para of the bail petition, correct Crime No.1255 of 2013 has been given against which bail was sought before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, the very first page of the bail petition shows as if the detenu seeks grant of bail in respect of Crime No.1139 of 2013, whereas actually no bail petition has been filed against Crime No.1139 of 2013. The said fact is correctly found mentioned in the bail petition furnished in vernacular version. Providing incorrect information without verification of actual position by the detaining authority would definitely take away the right of detenu ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India besides showing non application of mind on the part of detaining authority in arriving at such subjective satisfaction. Thus, the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Annamalai, S/o.Govindasamy,, made in Memo No.1177/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 30.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at 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, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude 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.