Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the aunt of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed in No.1418/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 23.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J.4 Kotturpuram Police Station, Crime No.441/2013 302 IPC 2. F.1 Chindadripet Police Station, Crime No.916/2013 379 IPC 3. F.1 Chindadripet Police Station, Crime No.1008/2013 341, 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 06.02.2013 by the Inspector of Police, F.1 Chindadripet Police Station in Crime No.1031/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned detention order on three grounds: Firstly, he would contend that the detaining authority has taken into account the information furnished by the sponsoring authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to bail out the detenu in two adverse cases, i.e. in Crime Nos.916/2013 and 1008/2013, without any supporting material. Secondly, he would contend that the similar order relied on by the detaining authority in Crime No.82/2013 is not similar in nature, as the offence involved therein is not similar to the case on hand. Thirdly, he would assail the detention order that an illegible copy of the First Information Report is furnished at page no.179 of the booklet, which would deprive the detenu to understand the content of the document to make an effective representation and therefore, on these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the ground case in which the material information has been taken into account by the detaining authority is itself sufficient to arrive at a satisfaction besides the similar case consideration and there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in view of the gravity of the offence involved by the detenu under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be questioned by the detenu. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be questioned by the detenu. As regards the second ground, i.e. similar case consideration, he would submit that the circumstances under which the Court concerned granted bail to the detenu therein cannot be a ground to legally infirm the detention order passed against the detenu herein. With regard to the 3rd ground that the document supplied to the detenu at page 179 of the booklet is illegible, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would admit that the said document is illegible. 5. Perused the material documents and the detention order and heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel on either side. 6. Before analyzing the correctness of the detention order, it is worth referring to the relevant portion of the detention order, as under: ''4.... I am aware that Thiru.Raja is in remand in F.1 Chindadripet Police Station Cr.Nos.916/2013, 1008/2013 and 1031/2013, he moved a bail application before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Clr.M.P.No.13560/2013 and the same is pending. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Raja are taking action to take him on bail by filing bail application before the court. Similarly, in a case registered at D.1 Triplicane Police Station Cr.No.82/2013 registered under Section 379 IPC, bail was granted by the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai in M.P.No.984-A/2013K-9. .... Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in F.1 Chindadripet Police Station Cr.No.1031/2013 and there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail F.1 Chindadripet Police Station Cr.Nos.916/2013 and 1008/2013 by filing bail application before the court, since in similar cases, bails are granted by the Courts after a lapse of time. ...” 7. While considering the first ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no cogent material to support the detaining authority's inference that the detenu will come out on bail, a perusal of paragraph 4 of the detention order would show that the detaining authority has relied on the information furnished by the sponsoring authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking action to take him out on bail in Crime Nos.916/2013 and 1008/2013. But, a perusal of the Special Report annexed at page 185 of the booklet would reveal that there is no cogent material to support the inference drawn by the detaining authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to bail him out in Crime Nos.916/2013 and 1008/2013. The same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. 8. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of S.Deepika vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu decided in H.C.P.No.2603 of 2012 on 02.07.2013, was pleased to hold as under : "73.3) In A.MURUGESAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (2010 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 950), it had been held that, while no bail application had been filed on behalf of the detenu, before the Court concerned, it would be too early for the detaining authority to record his satisfaction that the detenu is likely to come out on bail or that, if he is let to remain at large, he would indulge in such activities, in future, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Unless, cogent materials are available, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority would be a clear indication of the non-application of mind by the detaining authority in the passing of the detention order.” 9. As regards the second ground that the similar order relied on by the detaining authority in Crime No.82/2013 is not similar in nature, it is seen that the detaining authority has relied on a case registered in Crime No.82/2013 at D.1 Triplicane Police Station under Section 379 IPC, wherein, bail was granted by the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai in M.P.No.984-A/2013. But, the ground case of the detenu herein is registered at F.1 Chindadripet Police Station in Crime No.1031/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. A comparison of offences indicated in the similar case with that of present one makes it clear that both cases cannot be construed as similar in nature. Therefore, improper application of mind of the detaining authority is apparent in treating the offences as similar to that of one relied on by them. The impugned order cannot be sustained even on this ground. 10. Therefore, improper application of mind of the detaining authority is apparent in treating the offences as similar to that of one relied on by them. The impugned order cannot be sustained even on this ground. 10. With regard to the third ground that the document furnished to the detenu is illegible, a perusal of the booklet at page 179 which pertains to the First Information Report would show that the detaining authority, by providing an illegible copy of the said document, has taken away the rights of the detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention. The said act of the detaining authority is against the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 59, wherein, it is held as under: "3. It appears that the appellant had asked for certain copies of the documents, which admittedly were there with the respondent – Union of India. Copies of the documents were supplied, but the same were not legible. This position is also apparent. It is not necessary in the facts of this case to go into the question whether these documents were relevant or material. 4. In view of the fact that the copies of the documents were, in fact, supplied at the request of the appellant, but the copies supplied were illegible, we are of the opinion, that the safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed. In that view of the matter the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained and, therefore, is set aside. The Order of detention dated June 9, 1988 is quashed and the appellant be set at liberty unless he is required in respect of any other proceedings and therefore, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.'' 11. There must be a reasonable basis for the detention order and also there must be material to support the same. The Court is entitled to scrutinise the material relied upon by the authority in coming to its conclusion and, accordingly, determine if there is an objective basis for the subjective satisfaction. If any action, within the scope of the authority conferred by law is found to be unreasonable, it means that the procedure established under which that action is taken is itself unreasonable. 12. If any action, within the scope of the authority conferred by law is found to be unreasonable, it means that the procedure established under which that action is taken is itself unreasonable. 12. In our considered view, for the reasons stated above, the grounds on which the detention order is passed are extraneous to the object of the Act, thereby leading to the making of the detention order a nullity. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Raja made in No.1418/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 23.10.2013 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. 13. 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.