Judgment G. Chockalingam, J. 1. Detenu himself is the petitioner herein. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.1496/2013, dated 31.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station, Crime No.886/2011 457 and 380 IPC 2. R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station, Crime No.313/2012 379 IPC r/w. 34 IPC 3. R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station, Crime No.236/2013 379 and 511 IPC 4. R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station, Crime No.1655/2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 10.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, R-7, K.K. Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1721 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in column No.4 of the F.I.R., it has been stated that a written information has been given. But, the Sponsoring Authority has not furnished the written complaint to the detenu. It is further submitted that though the Detaining Authority relied on a similar case wherein bail was granted to an accused therein by the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai, in Crl.O.P.No.15965 of 2011 and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenue coming out on bail in respect of Crime No.1655 of 2013 [fourth adverse case] and in Crime No.1721 of 2013 [ground case], he has produced the bail order in Crl.O.P.No.15963 of 2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Sponsoring Authority recovered properties pursuant to the arrest of the accused under Form 95, but he has not produced the same before the Court concerned. Therefore, on these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions. 5. A reading of the copy of F.I.R. shows that under column No.4, it has been stated that information was given in writing. But, the Sponsoring Authority has not furnished the written complaint to the detenu. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions. 5. A reading of the copy of F.I.R. shows that under column No.4, it has been stated that information was given in writing. But, the Sponsoring Authority has not furnished the written complaint to the detenu. Further, as evidenced from the grounds of Detention, the bail petition filed in respect of the similar case relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction relates to Crl.O.P.No.15965 of 2011 whereas the bail order furnished in the Booklet relates to Crl.O.P.No.15963 of 2011. Further, from a perusal of the booklet at Page Nos.147 and 151, it is seen that though properties were recovered from the accused by the Sponsoring Authority, he has not produced any document to show that the same has been deposited before the Court concerned. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Murugan, S/o. Chithirapillai, made in BDFGISSV No.1496/2013, dated 31.10.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained 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.