Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the 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 No.959/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 10.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. C4 RGGH Police Station Crime No.11/2013 147, 148, 452, 342, 302 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 149 IPC 2. 147, 148, 452, 342, 302 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 149 IPC 392 IPC 3. H.1 Washermanpet Police Station, Crime No.72/2012 341, 384 and 506(ii) IPC 4. H1 Washermanpet Police Station, Crime No.302/2013 147, 148, 341, 353, 336, 427, 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 01.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, H.1 Washermanpet Police Station in Crime No.908/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Besides several grounds to assail the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his arguments on the ground that though the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case in respect of Crime No.908/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court, there is no cogent material to support the decision of the detaining authority 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. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder: ''4. ...The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Ramesh are taking action to take him on bail by filing another bail application before the Court. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in H.1 Washermanpet Police Station Cr.No.908/2013, since in similar case, bails are granted by the Courts after a lapse of time. ... '' 6. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the relatives of the detenu are taking action to bail out the detenu in the ground case in Crime No.908/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court. ... '' 6. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the relatives of the detenu are taking action to bail out the detenu in the ground case in Crime No.908/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court. It is true that the detaining authority is empowered to take a decision if there is material to support the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. But, on verification of the material documents, it is seen that no cogent material is available to support the decision of the detaining authority. The same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reason stated hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Ramesh made in No.959/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 10.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu 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.