Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu himself is the petitioner. The detenu has been branded as a Goonda as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 1403 of 2013 dated 22.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. E1 Mylapore Police Station, Crime No. 1243 of 2013 341, 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3 of TNPPDL Act 2. E1 Mylapore Police Station, Crime No. 1286 of 2013 341, 294(b), 324, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 09.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station in Crime No. 1515 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 336, 427, 307 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 though the detaining authority has expressed awareness that the detenu is in remand in connection with the case in Crime No. 1286 of 2013 and he moved a bail application before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai and the same is pending, he failed to mention the number of the bail application. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated on this ground. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point. 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 Raja @ Tokkan Raja is in remand in E.1 Mylapore Police Station Crime No. 1286 of 2013 and he moved a bail application before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. of 2013 for E.1 Mylapore Police Station Cr. No. 1286 of 2013 and the same is pending." 6. On a perusal of the grounds of detention, it is seen that the detaining authority has not mentioned the number of the bail application. The material relied on by the detaining authority should not be an empty formality but it should be supported by documents. No. 1286 of 2013 and the same is pending." 6. On a perusal of the grounds of detention, it is seen that the detaining authority has not mentioned the number of the bail application. The material relied on by the detaining authority should not be an empty formality but it should be supported by documents. Especially when the detaining authority has taken into account the bail application for observing that there is very likely of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case, the number of the bail application should be mentioned. But in para 4 of the grounds of detention, the number of the bail application has been omitted to be mentioned and the detaining authority has simply mentioned the number as Crl. M.P. No. of 2013. In the vernacular version of the grounds of detention also, the number of the bail application has not been mentioned. Therefore, this would cause serious prejudice to the detenu and the detenu is deprived from making effective representation. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Raja @ Tokkan Raja, S/o Govindasamy, made in BDFGISSV No. 1403 of 2013 dated 22.10.2013 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.