Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, is before this Court challenging the proceedings in BDFGISSV No. 1225 of 2013 dated 03.10.2013 on the file of the 2nd respondent and for a direction to the respondents to set the detenu at liberty from detention. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. E-5, Sholavaram Police Station No. 337 of 2013 147, 148, 294 (b), 324, 307 & 302 IPC 2. M-2 Madhavamam Milk Colony Police Station Crime No. 1216 of 2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 30.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, M-1, Madhavaram Police Station in Crime No. 1776 of 2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 336, 392, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC. 3. Amidst several grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his arguments on the question of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, while considering the material information. According to him, the detaining authority, in the detention order dated 03.10.2013, has stated that in the second adverse case in Cr. No. 1216 of 2013, the detenu was arrested and remanded, however, a reading of the booklet at page 146 would reveal that the remand order in respect of the said case was passed on 04.10.2014. Thus, according to the learned counsel, this would vitiate the detention order. 4. We have heard Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. 5. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the detention order in respect of the second adverse case with respect to the petitioner is extracted hereunder:– Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law Disposal /Present Stage M-2 Madhavamam Milk Colony Police Station Crime No. 1216 of 2013 392 IPC On 27.09.2013 at about 21.30 hrs when Thiru. Babu who is residing at No. 242, Barathi Salai, Chinna Mathur, Chennai 68 was proceeding at Mathur, M.M.D.A. 1st Main Road at that time two persons Tvl. Sasikumar and Prasath @ Appu who came there waylaid Thiru. Babu pretending as if enquiring about an address demanded money threatened at the point of knife and robbed cash Rs. 800/- from Thiur.Babu's pocket and ran away. Thiru. Sasikumar and Prasath @ Appu who came there waylaid Thiru. Babu pretending as if enquiring about an address demanded money threatened at the point of knife and robbed cash Rs. 800/- from Thiur.Babu's pocket and ran away. Thiru. Babu lodged a complaint in this regard, the accused were formally arrested and remanded. The case is under investigation. 6. A perusal of the booklet at Page No. 146 would reveal that the remand order in respect of the said second adverse case in Crime No. 1216 of 2013 was passed on 04.10.2013. Hence, we are not able to understand as to how the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction on the material document which was later to the order of detention. Therefore, on the ground of non-application of mind, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in BDFGISSV No. 1225 of 2013 dated 03.10.2013, is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Prasath @ Appu in this case 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 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.