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 the order of the 2nd respondent passed in No. 918/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 06.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. D.2 Anna Salai Police Station Crime No. 539 of 2013 457, 380 IPC 2. P.1 Chintadripet Police Station Crime No. 627 of 2013 379 IPC 3. F.1 Chintradripet Police Station, Crime No. 737 of 2013 379 IPC 4. F.1 Chintadripet Police Station Crime No. 816 of 2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 26.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, F.1 Chintadripet Police Station in Crime No. 840 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Besides several grounds to assail the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his arguments on the ground that though the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of adverse cases in Crime Nos. 539, 627, 737 and 816 of 2013 by filing bail applications 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 Rajesh are taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application in D.2 Anna Salai Police Station Cr. No. 539 of 2013, F.1 Chindadripet Police Station in Crime Nos. 627 of 2013, 737 of 2013 and 816 of 2013 by filing bail application before the court." 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 the adverse cases in Crime Nos. 539 of 2013, 627 of 2013, 737 of 2013 and 816 of 2013 by filing bail applications before the appropriate court. 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 the adverse cases in Crime Nos. 539 of 2013, 627 of 2013, 737 of 2013 and 816 of 2013 by filing bail applications 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 Rajesh made in No. 918/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 06.09.2013 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.