Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of 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 Memo No.1266/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 09.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. R-10, MGR Nagar Police Station, Crime No.1513 of 2013 Section 392 IPC 2. R-10, MGR Nagar Police Station, Crime No.1588 of 2013 Section 392 IPC 3. R-10, MGR Nagar Police Station, Crime No.1669 of 2013 Section 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, R-10, MGR Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1678 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that though the detaining authority relied on the bail order of an accused in the similar case stating that bail was granted by the 9th Metropolitan Court, Saidapet in Crl.M.P.No.573/2009 and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Cr.No.1669 of 2013, but the said bail order was granted by learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and not by IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation for his redressal 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. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority, by stating that in a similar case referred at R-1 Police Station in Crime No.26 of 2009 for an offence under Section 379 IPC, bail was granted to the accused therein by the 9th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet in Crl.M.P.No.573 of 2009, inferred that there is a real possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail in respect of Crime No.1669 of 2013, 3rd adverse case. But a perusal of the entire booklet reveals that the said bail was granted by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai instead of 9th Metropolitan Magistrate as mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, wrong mentioning of bail granting Court would, in our considered opinion, definitely deprive the detenu the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reason stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Mohanraj, S/o.Dhanasekaran, made in Memo No.1266/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 09.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is confined at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.