Judgment :- (Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu or his body namely Kuselan, aged about 30 years, detained in Central Prison, Chennai-3 as per the order of 2nd respondent vide proceedings No. 387/B.D.F.G.I.S/2005 dated 02-08-2005, before this Court and set him at liberty and call for the records and set aside the said detention order.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner Kasturi, mother of one Kuselan who was detained as Goonda under Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 02-08-2005, challenges the same in this petition. 2. Heard Mr. R. Gothandaraman, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate for respondents. 3. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the detention order only on the ground of non-application of mind. In support of his contention, he brought to our notice certain discrepancies and failure on the part of the detaining authority to consider relevant materials. 4. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that when a bail application in Crl.M.P.No. 6669 of 2005 filed by the petitioner/accused -detenu herein came up before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, City Public Prosecutor informed the Court that the petitioner therein/detenu herein has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 on 01-8-2005, whereas in this case, the detention order was passed only on 02-8-2005. This, according to the counsel, shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. We are unable to accept the said contention. It is not in dispute that the detention order was passed only on 02-8-2005 by the detaining authority, namely, Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. While so, merely because it was informed by the City Public Prosecutor before the Prl. Sessions Judge, Chennai that the petitioner therein/accused/detenu herein has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 on 01-8-2005, we think it would not vitiate the detention order passed by the second respondent. At the most, it might be a mistake on the part of the City Public Prosecutor and it has nothing to do with the passing of the detention order. 5. At the most, it might be a mistake on the part of the City Public Prosecutor and it has nothing to do with the passing of the detention order. 5. By drawing to our notice to a seizure mahazar which is available at page 67 of the paper book supplied to the detenu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that column No.4 which relates to details of seizure, is left blank, and therefore it also vitiates the detention order. As against this, the learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice a document at page 68 of the paper book wherein there is a specific reference to knife which was seized from the accused/detenu in the presence of two witnesses. In such a circumstance, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out the Arrest Memo which is available at page 78 of the paper book wherein two Crime Numbers, namely, Cr.No.394/2005 and 397/2005 have been referred to, however, in the requisition for remand, the sponsoring authority has mentioned Crime No. 397/2005 only and in the absence of reference with regard to remand in Crime No. 394/2005, the imminent possibility of coming out on bail as concluded by the detaining authority does not arise. Here again, we are unable to accept the said contention. It is true that in that Arrest Memo, there is a reference to Crime No. 394/2005 which relates to fifth adverse case and Crime No. 397/2005 which is the subject matter of ground case. However, the sponsoring authority has requested the learned 16th Metropolitan Magistrate to grant remand only in Crime No. 397/2005 which is the ground case. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 27-7-2005, remanded the accused-detenu to judicial custody till 10-8-2005. The sponsoring authority has also submitted a special report only with regard to Crime No. 397/2005 namely, ground case. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, on the date of passing of the detention order, the detaining authority must aware of the fact that the detenu was in remand by an order of Court. He possessed the said information on perusing the order of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai dated 27-7-2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, on the date of passing of the detention order, the detaining authority must aware of the fact that the detenu was in remand by an order of Court. He possessed the said information on perusing the order of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai dated 27-7-2005. In such a circumstance, there is no requisition by the sponsoring authority and an order of remand by the learned Magistrate in respect of fifth adverse case would not affect the impugned detention order. Further, as rightly pointed out, adverse case No.5 in Crime No. 394/2005 of N3 Muthialpet Police Station relates to an occurrence happened on 26-7-2005 for offences under Sections 341, 386 and 506 (2) I.P.C., whereas the ground case dated 27-7-2005 of the same Police Station in Crime No. 397/2005 relates to graver offences, namely, Sections 341, 336, 307, 427 and 506 (2) I.P.C. In other words, Crime No. 397/2005, which is the ground case, is a much more serious case than the fifth adverse case and the detaining authority has rightly obtained the required particulars relating to the adverse case and after satisfying that the accused was in remand by a valid order of Magistrate and considering the fact that if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and after satisfying himself that there is compelling necessity for detaining him, passed the impugned order of detention. Except the above points, no other contention was raised. 7. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any ground for interference; accordingly, the petition fails and the same is dismissed.