Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu herein. He has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in No.621/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 07.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. S-7 Madipakkam Police Station, Crime No.208/2013 384, 506(ii) IPC 2. S-9 Pazhavanthangal Police Station, Crime No.408/2013 392 IPC 3. S-7 Madipakkam Police Station Crime No.1409/2013 384, 506(i) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 09.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-7 Madipakkam Police Station in Crime No.1414/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Besides several grounds to assail the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner focused his arguments on the ground that though the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime No.1409/2013 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.Malar @ Malarmannan is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for S-7 Madipakkam Police Station in Crime No.1409/2013 before the appropriate court. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station in Crime No.381/2009 under Sections 147, 448, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and 3(1) TNPP (D&L) Act, bail was granted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore in Crl.M.P.No.1361/2009. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at M-8 Sathankadu Police Station in Cr.No.272/2011 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Hon'ble High Court at Madras in Crl.O.P.No.15965/2011. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at M-8 Sathankadu Police Station in Cr.No.272/2011 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Hon'ble High Court at Madras in Crl.O.P.No.15965/2011. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail by filing bail application for S-7 Madipakkam Police Station Crime No.1414/2012 and there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in S-7 Madipakkam Police Station in Crime No.1409/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by 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 Crime No.1409/2013 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 Malar @ Malarmannan made in No.621/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 07.08.2013 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.