JUDGMENT : N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. The mother of the detenu has come before this Court challenging the detention order dated 30.10.2019 made in S.C. No. 27 of 2019 by the second respondent by which the petitioner's son has been branded as 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. It is seen from the records that three cases have been registered against the petitioner's son viz., one in Cr. No. 684 of 2018 under Sections 387, 506 (ii) of Indian Penal Code on the file of Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station, another in Cr. No. 486 of 2019 under Sections 427, 436, 506 (ii) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and 4 of PPDL Act on the file of the Krishnagiri Town Police Station and the ground case in Cr. No. 509 of 2019 under Sections 436, 506 (ii) of Indian Penal Code on the file of the Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station. The ground case is that the detenu along with others had thrown a bottle filed with petroleum after putting it on fire on 16.09.2019 at the house of one Mr. Kemban. Therefore, the petitioner's son was arrested. 3. Heard Mr. R. Sankara Subbu learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 4. Mr. R. Sankara Subbu, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's son was arrested in the adverse case in Cr. No. 684 of 2018 and he was granted bail on 17.12.2018. Subsequently, on 16.09.2019, the accused were arrested in the ground case registered in Cr. No. 509 of 2019 and was confined at Central Prison, Salem. Thereafter, the accused were formally arrested on 27.09.2019 in connection with another adverse case registered in Cr. No. 486 of 2019 through P.T. Warrant. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's son was already on bail in the adverse case registered in the year 2018 and he was arrested only in the ground case and was confined at Central Prison, Salem and in the subsequent adverse case, he was formally arrested on 27.09.2019. Further, he Submitted that the bail petition filed in the ground case was already dismissed and therefore, there is no scope for coming out on bail. Further, he Submitted that the bail petition filed in the ground case was already dismissed and therefore, there is no scope for coming out on bail. The learned Counsel for the petitioner opposed one of the reasons given by the detention authority for passing the detention order that the co-accused of this case was granted bail and there is a real possibility for the petitioner's son to come out on bail, by stating that the co-accused who was granted bail, was a minor and submitted that there is no application of mind by the detaining authority. 6. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 50-A of the Criminal Procedure Code if a person is arrested, the same has to be informed either to the close relative or friend whereas in this case, no such information was given to the detenu's relative or friend. Therefore, he submitted that the order passed by the detaining authority is vitiated and seeks for allowing this petition. 7. However, Mr. R. Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and supported the detention order. He would also submit that no representation has been received either from the detenu or from the petitioner or from his relatives. Further, he submitted that the petitioner's son was already detained under 'Goondas' Act. However, his formal arrest in the subsequent case has been informed through message. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of this petition. 8. On going through the materials on record, it is evident that the detenu's arrest was not informed to his close relatives or friend under Section 50-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Though, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the intimation has been sent through message, there is no proof for the same. Even if the accused is detained under Goondas Act, it is the statutory duty of the police to inform the arrest of the detenu in another case to the relative or friend. Therefore, the detention order passed in S.C. No. 27 of 2019 is vitiated and the same is quashed. Accordingly the detenu viz., Jaga alias Jagadeeswaran s/o. Vasudevan aged about 24 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem is set at liberty. 9. Therefore, the detention order passed in S.C. No. 27 of 2019 is vitiated and the same is quashed. Accordingly the detenu viz., Jaga alias Jagadeeswaran s/o. Vasudevan aged about 24 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem is set at liberty. 9. Further, this Court is of the view that the very laudable purpose of the Act is only to see that the accused does not come out of bail as there is a likelihood of committing similar offence. However, the Inspector of Police has failed to inform the arrest of the detenu either to his relative or friend. Though it is contended that the arrest has been informed through message, no proof has been filed for the same. The messages sent through electronic devices can be easily retrieved and can be produced. Further, the police could have got statement from his relative or friend under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code regarding the intimation of arrest and the same could have been produced before this Court. However, no such effort has been taken by the Inspector of Police. Hence, the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District is directed to take departmental action against the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station and submit the action taken report before this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above directions, this Petition is allowed. Post the matter for compliance after three months.