[Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.] The petitioner Mrs.Surumi/wife of the detenu namely Sathik Batcha, S/o.Mohamed Hanif, aged about 35 years has come to this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition, challenging the correctness of the impugned detention order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the second respondent/District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, branding the petitioner's husband as 'Goonda'.2.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 25.07.2019, passed by the 2nd respondent herein, would disclose among other things that the detenu, viz., Sathik Batcha came to the adverse notice in the following two cases:-Karaikal Town Police Station Cr.U/s 419, 420, 120-B of I.P.C and 166 of 2015 Section 66C, 66-D of IT Act, 2000Mambalam R1 Police Station 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, Cr.No.301/2018 448, 427, 380 and 506(ii) of I.P.C It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu was involved in a case for the commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 307, 506(ii) I.P.C and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, r/w 26(2) of Arms Act, 1959 in Kumbakonam Police Station Crime No.187 of 2019 (ground case).The detenu was arrested on 07.07.2019 and produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam.The detaining authority on being satisfied with the materials placed by the sponsoring authority that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, clamped the order of detention and making a challenge to the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner.3.We have heard Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to page No.83 of the booklet and would submit that after the arrest of the accused in ground case in Crime No.187 of 2019, the arrest intimation was not communicated to the family members of the detenu and though the arrest intimation was said to have been sent to the mobile No. 9003169990 through SMS, the person to whom the message was sent to the said mobile number has not been identified and the signature of the concerned person has also not been obtained and in the light of the non- communication of the arrest intimation, the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR (1997) SC 610 [D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal] is violated and as such, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.5.In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on an unreported order of this Court dated 07.06.2019 made in H.C.P.(MD) No.26 of 2019 in the matter of Natarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government and two others, in which one of us (B.PUGALENDHI, J) was a party.Accordingly, on this sole ground, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 detention order is liable to fall.9.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed by setting aside the Order of Detention passed by the second respondent herein, namely, the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District in P.D.O.No.

Cited provisions: Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code