Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the sister of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2ndrespondent passed in Memo No.1189/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. K-7, I.C.F. Police Station, Crime No.276 of 2013 Sections 341, 147, 148 and 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC 2. K-7, I.C.F. Police Station, Crime No.277 of 2013 Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 427, 392, 397 and 506 (ii) r/w 149 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 22.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-7, I.C.F. Police Station in Crime No.741 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 427, 392, 397 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 though the detaining authority relied on the bail order granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in a similar case to an accused therein in Crl.M.P.No.3020 of 2013 and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime No.741 of 2013, ground case, by filing bail application, but the said material relied on by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu at the time of passing the order of detention, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation for his redressal 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. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority, by stating that in a similar case registered at K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station in Crime No.316 of 2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 336, 341, 392, 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused therein by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.3020 of 2013, inferred that there is a real possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail in the event of filing any bail application in respect of ground case in Crime No.741 of 2013. In such situation, it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to provide a copy of both bail order and bail petition, pertaining to the similar case to the detenu. But a perusal of the entire booklet reveals that there is no material annexed in it with respect to the similar case relied upon by the detaining authority, which in our considered opinion, would definitely deprive the detenu the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reason stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Ranjith, S/o. Paramanantham, made in Memo No.1189/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 30.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is confined 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. 7. 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.