JUDGMENT A. SELVAM, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention order passed in M.H.S. Confdl. No. 34 of 2014, dated 07.06.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Moorthy @ Uthiramoorthy and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith. 2. The Inspector of Police, Munneerpallam Police Station as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases: (i) Crime No. 537 of 2013, Munneerpallam Police Station registered under Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) Crime No. 538 of 2013, Munneerpallam Police Station registered under Sections 387 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) Crime No. 23 of 2014, Cheranmahadevi Police Station registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 27.05.2014, the detenu has illegally demanded money from one Ayyappan and subsequently he attacked him and consequently a police complaint has been given in Munneerpallam Police Station against the detenu and the same has been registered in Crime No. 175 of 2014 under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu. 4. The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein after perusing the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and thereby branded him as Goonda by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu as petitioner. 5. On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false. It is further stated in the counter that already a similar petition has been filed and after hearing both sides, the same has been dismissed and therefore the present petition is also liable to be dismissed. 6. It is further stated in the counter that already a similar petition has been filed and after hearing both sides, the same has been dismissed and therefore the present petition is also liable to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced his argument on the basis of grounds mentioned in the petition and one of the grounds is that the detaining authority has erroneously relied upon similar case particulars, since the similar case is not at all identical with the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 7. In fact, this Court has perused all the grounds urged on the side of the petitioner and one of the grounds has been mentioned with regard to similar case particulars. 8. The detaining authority has relied upon the bail order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 4151 of 2011 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, wherein it is represented on the side of the petitioners that the concerned injured has been discharged. Further the Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the petitioners have not involved in any previous case. Under the said circumstances, the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli has granted bail to the petitioners therein. 9. In the instant case, the detenu has involved in three adverse cases and also in one ground case. Since the detenu has involved in four cases and since the petitioners mentioned in the order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 4151 of 2011 have involved in a single case, nobody can say that both cases are similar. 10. The detaining authority without considering the nature of circumstances under which bail has been granted by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, has erroneously come to a conclusion that in a similar case, bail has been granted by a competent Court. Therefore, it is very clear that the detaining authority has not applied his mind properly in relying upon similar case particulars. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the detention order in question is not factually and legally sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. 11. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in M.H.S. Confdl. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the detention order in question is not factually and legally sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. 11. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in M.H.S. Confdl. No. 34 of 2014, dated 07.06.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Moorthy @ Uthiramoorthy, Son of Sivanpandi at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.