Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 1st respondent herein and made in BDFGISSV No.48 of 2009, dated 27. 2009, set aside the same and to produce the body of the detenu, Martyn S/o. Sathyanathan, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. The detenu himself has challenged the order for detention passed against him under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, after he was identified as a “Goodna”, since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities inasmuch as on three earlier occasions in ES Sholavaram Police Station Cr.Nos. 554 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 427, 384 and 506(ii) IPC, 555 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC, and 556 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 353, 332, 427, 336, 307 and 506 (ii) IPC, and that on 7. 2009, while the police party was in search of the detenu, they saw the detenu along with 4 others and seeing the police they tried to assault the police officials during which the accused who were with the detenu tried to assault the Sub-Inspector on his chest and the detenu and another by name Magi @ Magendiran were pelting stones and by taking glass bottles from the Tasmac shop, broke them and threatened them. The Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police Station on the report made by Tr. Sudalaimani, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponneri Police Station registered a case in Sholavaram P.S. Cr.No.556 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 353, 332, 427, 336, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. The detenu was arrested on 7. 2009 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri on 7. 2009 and lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, upto 27. 2009. In view of the above, the sponsoring authority has satisfied that, the detenu is a habitual offender and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a “Goonda”, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and hence, sponsored the detenu before the Detaining Authority for passing an order of detention against him. The Detaining Authority on consideration of the materials placed before him, passed the order of detention against the detenu. The Detaining Authority on consideration of the materials placed before him, passed the order of detention against the detenu. Aggrieved of the same, the present habeas corpus petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, while passing the order of detention, the detaining authority has taken into consideration only the ground case under Section 307 IPC, and failed to take into consideration the second adverse case where the offence is graver than the ground case i.e., 302 IPC. The failure to take into consideration the second adverse case before passing the order of detention, which is a graver offence, according to the counsel, vitiates the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind. .5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the facts in brief in respect .of second adverse case has found place in the order of detention and further submitted that, while passing the order of detention, the detaining authority has relied upon only the ground case to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that, there is compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and such subjective satisfaction is based on relevant materials. 6. We have heard the counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials produced before us. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as apparent from para 5(i) of the ground of detention, the detaining authority, while passing the order of preventive, detention, has relied upon only the ground case registered under Sections 307 IPC, to come to the subjective satisfaction that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu as “Goonda” under Act 14 of 1982 in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority has not taken into consideration the second adverse case, which was registered under Section 302 IPC, on the very same day by the very same E5 Sholavaram Police Station. The date of occurrence of the second adverse, case was 7. 2009, whereas the order of detention was passed on 27. 2009, after 15 days of the occurrence. The detaining authority has not taken into consideration the second adverse case, which was registered under Section 302 IPC, on the very same day by the very same E5 Sholavaram Police Station. The date of occurrence of the second adverse, case was 7. 2009, whereas the order of detention was passed on 27. 2009, after 15 days of the occurrence. Even as per the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. an accused charged under Section 302 IPC, would be entitled for statutory bail only after a period of ninety days. Normally it is expected that the Courts, are not granting bail in major offences like 302 IPC earlier. Therefore, the releasing of the detenu on bail in the near future is dark. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if the detaining authority would have kept in view the fact that the detenu was an accused in an offence under Section 302 IPC, which had occurred on the very same day, and there is no real possibility on coming out on bail, he would not have passed the order of detention and, therefore, the detaining authority has passed the order mechanically without application of mind. .7. It is true that if the detaining authority would have taken into consideration the second adverse case registered under Section 302 IPC, registered on the very same day when the ground case had occurred, would have come to a conclusion that there is no real possibility of coming out on bail by the detenu and there would have been no occasion to pass the order of preventive detention. Since the order of detention has passed .mechanically without taking into consideration the gravity of the offence in respect, of the second adverse case, the order of preventive detention is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind. Though the offences charged against the detenu are very serious, we are constrained to quash the order of preventive detention. 8. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in the remand order found at Page No. 102 of the booklet, the date has been wrongly mentioned as 17. 2009 instead of 7. 2009 as the detenu was originally arrested on 7. 2009 and this amounts to non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 9. 2009 instead of 7. 2009 as the detenu was originally arrested on 7. 2009 and this amounts to non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 9. On contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the sponsoring authority had applied for the copy of the remand order on 17. 2009 and the said date reflects in the order instead of the date on which the detenu was arrested i.e. 7. 2009. He has therefore requested this Court to issue appropriate direction to the lower Court dealing with these matters that instead of putting the date on which the copy application was made, the original date on which the detenu was remanded should be typed or reflected in the remand order. In this context he has submitted that putting the date of application of the certified copy as the date of passing the remand order causes great inconvenience to them and advantage to the detenu. 10. Though the second contention merits acceptance, since we are quashing the order of preventive detention on the other ground, we are not dealing further into this aspect. Regarding the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in the Judicial Magistrate’s Court the date of issuance of certified copy is being mentioned as the date of the remand order, we are not in a position to accept such submission. Normally the lower Courts dealing with the remand report put the date of remand as the order of remand and it may be due to typographical error or inadvertent mistake the date on which the copy application is being made has been indicated. In the interest of public, we consider it appropriate to direct the Registrar General to look into the matter and, if he finds any wrong practice is prevailing in the Magistrate’s Court, he is directed to issue circular or guidelines to the lower Courts dealing with the remand report to put the date of passing the order of remand instead of putting the date on which the application for certified copy had been made. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of Detention passed against the detenu, S. Martyn S/o. Sathiyanathan, is liable to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other cases.