Judgment :- (The Habeas Corpus Petition has been preferred by the petitioner / detenu, challenging the order of detention, dated 28.02.2008 passed by the second respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. As per the detention order, it is seen that there are five adverse cases registered against the detenu. The first case in Cr.No.384 of 2005 on the file of the Erode Town Police Station was registered, punishable under Sections 324, 506 (ii) IPC for the occurrence that had taken place on 14.03.2005. The second case was registered in Cr.No.31 of 2006 on the file of the Erode North Police Station, punishable under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302 IPC for the occurrence that had taken place on 12.01.2006. The third case was registered in Cr.No.320 of 2006 on the file of the Karungalpalayam Police Station, punishable under Section 294 (b) IPC for the occurrence that had taken place on 18.06.2006. The fourth case was registered in Cr.No.128 of 2007 on the file of the Karungalpalayam Police Station, punishable under Sections 147, 341, 294 (b) and 323 IPC, for the occurrence that had taken place on 12.03.2007. The fifth adverse case was registered in Cr.No.821 of 2007 on the file of the Karungalpalayam Police Station, punishable under Sections 324, 323 and 506 (ii) IPC for the occurrence that had taken place on 112. 2007. 3. As per the ground case, on 08.02.2008 at about 1 p.m, when the defacto complainant, S.Kumar and his friend one Amanullah were standing nearby a bunk shop, opposite to Registrar Office at Karungalpalayam, Erode, the detenu who came there, took a knife from his waist portion and asked both of them to hand over money in their possession, then took out Rs.100/-, that was available in the shirt-pocket of the defacto complainant and also got a gold ring, weighing ¼ sovereign from the defacto complainant, however, the other person had no money or jewel, while, he shouted for rescue, the detenu threatened the defacto complainant and other people by showing a knife and breaking cool drinks bottle, whereby created panic. On the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the case in Cr.No.91 of 2008 on the file of the Karungalpalayam Police Station was registered under Sections 341, 392 and 506 (ii) IPC. On the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the case in Cr.No.91 of 2008 on the file of the Karungalpalayam Police Station was registered under Sections 341, 392 and 506 (ii) IPC. On 08.02.2008 at about 17.30 hrs, when the Inspector of Police, attached to Karungalpalayam police station was attending his duty at the Cauvery check post, he got reliable information and proceeded to Kaverikarai burial ground, along with the witnesses. On seeing the party, the detenu who was found there, attempted to run away from the said place, however, the Inspector of Police caught hold of him along with the help of his police party. On enquiry, he admitted his guilt that on 08.02.2008 at about 1 p.m, he threatened the public by showing a knife and robbed the cash and gold ring from the defacto complainant, then the properties were recovered from him and he was arrested and remanded to Judicial custody. Considering the various adverse cases and the ground case, he was detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by the Detaining Authority, since his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. The petitioner has challenged the detention order on the ground that he had not moved bail application before any competent court, hence, the averments of the Detaining Authority, that there was likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail is incorrect. However, the court is of the view that when a person is arrested and remanded to custody, it is his right to move the competent court, by seeking bail at any time, hence, merely on the ground that the detenu had not filed any bail application, it cannot be argued that there was no likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. Therefore, the ground raised by the detenu is not legally sustainable. Though the petitioner / detenu has stated that there was unexplained delay for considering the representation, the same has not been specifically stated with relevant dates either in the affidavit filed by him or in the arguments advanced by his counsel. 5. Therefore, the ground raised by the detenu is not legally sustainable. Though the petitioner / detenu has stated that there was unexplained delay for considering the representation, the same has not been specifically stated with relevant dates either in the affidavit filed by him or in the arguments advanced by his counsel. 5. On a perusal of the detention order and the materials supplied to the detenu, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is seen that the detention order and copies of all relied on documents were furnished to the detenu within five days and there is no delay in considering the representation made by the detenu. It is seen that the detention order was duly intimated to his family members and the documents show that Ms. Kavitha, sister of the detenu had sent telegram to various authorities, even prior to the detention order. 6. Mr. M. Boopathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the fifth adverse case is a foisted case. According to him, in the English version, it is stated that Thiru Mani alias Manikandan alias Toyyamani and his accomplice caused blood injuries of one Thiru Arulkumar by knife and aruval due to previous enimity, but in the Tamil version, it is stated that Thiru Mani alias Manikandan alias Toyyamani and his accomplices caused blood injuries of one Thiru Arulkumar by knife and aruval due to previous enimity. 7. As contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the name of the detenu has been specifically stated in the FIR, related to the fifth adverse case and further, the five adverse cases pending against the petitioner would show that he is habituated in committing crimes and therefore, the word accomplice in the English version, stated in plural in the Tamil version is no way prejudicial to the right of the detenu. 8. In order to detain a person as a "Goonda" under Section 2 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), the person either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences, punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, as shown in the detention order, there are five adverse cases pending against the petitioner / detenu, apart from the ground case. The Detaining Authority has got subjective satisfaction, based on the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 9. Considering the detention order and the materials available on record, we are of the view that the order has been passed by the Detaining Authority, only after considering the materials and having subjective satisfaction. There is no illegality or violation of any mandatory provision to set aside the impugned order and therefore, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. No costs.