Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 2008 by the order of the 3rd respondent vide No.28/DM/RO/D2/PPSAAA/2013, dated 30.10.2013. 2. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu Laloo @ Lemon Anandaraj is a dangerous person habitually involved in body offences punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of Indian Penal Code and he has so far involved in 9 criminal cases, which include 4 cases of murder, 1 case of attempt to Extortion, 1 case of rioting, 2 cases of Misc. IPC, 1 case of Arms Act. Of the above cases, 3 murder cases, 1 Arms Act case ended in acquittal; 1 Attempt to Extortion, 1 Rioting, 1 Misc. IPC case are under investigation. The detaining authority has further stated that the detenu committed offences under Sections 302, 324, 387, 294, 148, 147, 427, 447, 448, 188, 451, 143 and 506(ii) IPC related to the activities that endanger human life, personal safety and property of others and he is also involved for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act. Hence, the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu Laloo @ Lemon Anandaraj had indulged in activities that are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order and clamped the order of detention on him in exercise of the powers conferred under G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 13.09.2013 of Home Department, Puducherry. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a copy of the bail order dated 25.08.2013 in Crime No.164/2013 relied on by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu, 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 Government Advocate (Pondy). He has not disputed the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on verification of the booklet, would submit that the said bail order is not furnished in the booklet. 5. 4. We have heard the learned Government Advocate (Pondy). He has not disputed the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on verification of the booklet, would submit that the said bail order is not furnished in the booklet. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the booklet, it is seen that the bail order dated 25.08.2013 in Crime No.164/2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC & 27(1)(a) of Arms Act of D Nagar Police Station, relied on by the detaining authority in paragraph 2(ix), has not been furnished to the detenu. Any document relied on by the detaining authority in the detention order has to be furnished to the detenu to enable him make an effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation. In this case, the same is denied to the detenu, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, thereby vitiating the order of detention. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the third respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Laloo @ Lemon Anandaraj made in Memo No.28/DM/RO/D2/PPSAAA/2013, dated 30.10.2013 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. 7. 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.