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 first respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 1371 of 2013 dated 17.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. P-1 Pulianthope Police Station, Crime No. 861 of 2013 380 IPC 2. P-1 Pulianthope Police Station, Crime No. 872 of 2013 380 IPC 3. P-1 Pulianthope Police Station, Crime No. 1824 of 2013 454, 380, 511 IPC 4. P-1 Pulianthope Police Station, Crime No. 1835 of 2013 457, 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 06.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-1 Pulianthope Police Station in Crime No. 1836 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 392, 336, 427 and 506 (ii) r/w 397 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 the detaining authority has expressed subjective satisfaction over the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail based on the bail order in a similar case and copy of the said bail order was not furnished to the detenu in the booklet and there is nothing to show that such material was placed before the detaining authority at the time of clamping the order of detention and hence it is vitiated. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that the detenu is involved in serious offences and technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 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. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at T-14 Mangadu Police Station Cr. No. 737 of 2011 under Sections 454, 380, 511 IPC @ 454, 380 IPC bail was granted by the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur in Crl. M.P. No. 4610 of 2011. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at T-1 Ambattur Police Station Cr. No. 737 of 2011 under Sections 454, 380, 511 IPC @ 454, 380 IPC bail was granted by the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur in Crl. M.P. No. 4610 of 2011. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at T-1 Ambattur Police Station Cr. No. 464 of 2012 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur in Crl. M.P. No. 712 of 2012. Hence, I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in P1 Pulianthope Police Station Cr. Nos. 1824 of 2013, 1835 of 2013 and 1836 of 2013 cases by filing bail application before the appropriate court since in similar cases bails are granted by the courts after a lapse of time." 6. As seen from the extracted passage, the subjective satisfaction expressed by the detaining authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the third and fourth adverse cases as well as the ground case in which he was on remand (ground case) is based on the bail order in Crl. O.P. No. 712 of 2012 in a similar case in Crime No. 464 of 2012 on the file of T1 Ambattur Police Station. A copy of the said order is not found in the booklet supplied to the detenu. There is nothing to show that such material was placed before the detaining authority at the time of clamping the order of detention. Therefore, non-furnishing of the bail order in a similar case prevented the detenu from making effective representation and the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Selvakumar, S/o Elumalai, made in BDFGISSV No. 1371 of 2013 dated 17.10.2013 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.