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 2nd respondent herein and made in BDFGISSV No. 76 of 2009, dated 9. 2009, set aside the same and to produce the body of the detenu, V. Boopathy S/o. Velu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. The detenu challenges the order of detention passed against the detenu detaining him under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, after he was branded as a “Goonda”, since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on three earlier occasions, namely, Chengalpattu Taluk Police station Cr. Nos. 560, 561 and 208 under Section 307 IPC, and the ground case registered on 8. 2009 by the Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station Cr. No. 538 of 2009 under Sections 341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) IPC, and 3 & 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908, on the complaint made by one Kumaravel, whereunder he has alleged that the detenu waylaid him and demanded Rs. 1,000/- every month as mamool and when the complainant refused, the detenu with his knife caused injury and tried to throw a country bomb hidden on his hands. Thereafter, creating a panic among the public, escaped from the scene of occurrence. After investigation, the detenu was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu on 8. 2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody upto 18. 2009. 3. 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 health 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 o9f the materials placed before him, passed the order of detention against the detenu. Aggrieved of the same, the present habeas corpus petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that there was no valid remand on 9. Aggrieved of the same, the present habeas corpus petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that there was no valid remand on 9. 2009 as the detenu was not produced before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu on 9. 2009 and, since the order of detention came to be passed on 9. 2009, during such period of remand, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that, on 9. 2009, the remand was extended and the detenu was in remand, was illegal and without adverting to the materials available on record. 6. We have perused the booklet produced. As seen from the materials on record, the Accused was not produced through VCS due to technical snag and the remand was extended till 19. 2009 by ordering that the accused to be produced on 19. 2009 by ordering that the accused to be produced on 19. 2009. Though the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor admitted that the detenu was not produced on 9. 2009 and there was no valid order of remand on the date when the order of detention came to be passed, he has contended that non-production of the detenu was on a technical problem and there are other records to show that the detenu is in remand. 7. Though prima facie the contention of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appears to be acceptable, it is stated to be rejected on a closer scrutiny. The detaining authority in para 5 of the grounds of detention has clearly averred that though he has not stated specifically that the detenu is in remand it has been averred as “His remand period has been periodically extended upto 19. 2009”, that is to say, the detenu is in remand as on the date of their order of detention. Whereas, there is no material to show that on date of detention, whether the detenu is in remand. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation from the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, we have no other option than to come to the conclusion that the detaining authority has not applied his mind to the fact that the detenu has been in remand at the time of passing the order of detention and there has been a valid remand on 9. 2009. It. Public Prosecutor, we have no other option than to come to the conclusion that the detaining authority has not applied his mind to the fact that the detenu has been in remand at the time of passing the order of detention and there has been a valid remand on 9. 2009. It. Is well settled that when there is no valid remand, there cannot be a valid order of detention. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of Detention passed against the detenu, Boopathy, S/o. Velu, is liable to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu i.e. directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other cases.