JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The mother of the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 24-8-2013 made in Memo No. 798/BDFGISSV/2013 passed by the second respondent, under which the detenu has been branded as a 'Goonda' and detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: Sl No. Police Station and Crime No. Section of Law 1. K-11, C.M.B.T. Police Station Cr. No.482/2012 379 IPC 2. K-11, C.M.B.T. Police Station Cr. No.228/2013 379 IPC 3. Thirupathur Town Police Station, Vellore District Cr. No.270/2013 457, 380 IPC 4. K-11, C.M.B.T. Police Station Cr. No.737/2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 23-7-2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-11 C.M.B.T. Police Station in Crime No. 746/2013 under Sections 341, 323, 427, 397 and 506(ii), IPC. 2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that there is non-application of mind while passing the detention order as regards the similar case consideration. Therefore, the likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail is not there and the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not proper. 3. We have heard Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 4. For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below: "4......It is pertinent to note that in a case registered at T-1, Ambattur Police Station in Crime No. 1960/2012 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 Cri. M.P. No. 2392/2012. Similarly, in a case registered under Section 379, IPC the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee granted bail for T-6 Avadi Police Station in Crime No. 1677/2012 in Cri.M.P. No. 8172/2012.........." 5. On a perusal of the booklet, at page 219, it is seen that the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, has granted bail to one Sekar alias Lotta Sekar in Crime No. 1960 of 2012. On a perusal of the booklet, at page 219, it is seen that the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, has granted bail to one Sekar alias Lotta Sekar in Crime No. 1960 of 2012. In the Tamil version of the bail order at page 221, the Public Prosecutor had stated that the detenu had ten previous cases. Whereas, in the present case, such similarity is not found, as in the first adverse case, trial was concluded and conviction was made. As regards adverse cases 2, 3 and 4, investigation is pending. Such being the position, it is clear that the detention order has been passed without application of mind as the similar case relied on by the detaining authority cannot be applied to the case on hand. Moreover, the bail order granted in Cri. M.P. No. 8172 of 2012 in Crime No. 1677/2012 to one Appu alias Sivakumar, found at page 217 of the booklet, is available only in Tamil version and the English version of it is not enclosed in the typed set of papers. 6. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the said ground will not affect the decision arrived at by the detaining authority, non-furnishing of the English version of the said bail order is one of the factors to be taken into account. 7. It is true that the detaining authority is empowered to take all the probabilities of the likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, considering the similar case. Considering the above aspects, as the similar case relied on by the detaining authority is not similar to the case on hand, the detention order cannot be allowed to stand and is liable to be set aside. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in No. 798/BDGISSV/2013 dated 24-8-2013 is set aside. The detenu Prabhakaran in this case is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from conducting cases effectively and shall not confer any right to the detenu before the Regular Court. Petition allowed