Judgment :- (M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Ramu. She challenges an order of the second respondent made in No.34/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 11.3.2010, whereby her son was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The Court also looked into the materials available including the grounds of detention. 3. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in six adverse cases namely (1) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.159/2002 under Sec.324 IPC; (2) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.32/2005 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 324 IPC; (3) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.594/2007 under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC; (4) M7 Manali New Town PS Cr.No.19/2010 under Sections 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC; (5) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.64/2010 under Sections 364, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and (6) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.65/2010 under Sections 364, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and also in one ground case registered by M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.66/2010 under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC for an occurrence that took place on 6.3.2010, and he was arrested on 7.3.2010 and remanded to judicial custody, the detaining authority after scrutiny of the materials placed, formed an opinion that the detenu should be detained under Act 14/82 and hence passed the order which is under challenge. 4. The learned Counsel while advancing the arguments raised three grounds. Firstly, he was actually remanded in the last adverse case and also in the ground case on the very day, and he has not moved any bail application; but it is stated by the authority that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail. Secondly, no special report was actually filed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority. Thirdly, he was shown arrest in respect of Crime Nos.19/2010, 64/2010, 65/2010 and 66/2010 registered by the very same police station as shown in page No.58 of the booklet. When the remand order was made as found in page 37 of the booklet, it was pertaining to Crime No.66/2010 and the remand report in respect of the other three crime numbers was not placed. It is also not known whether the remand was actually made in the other two cases or not. 5. When the remand order was made as found in page 37 of the booklet, it was pertaining to Crime No.66/2010 and the remand report in respect of the other three crime numbers was not placed. It is also not known whether the remand was actually made in the other two cases or not. 5. Added further the learned Counsel that in paragraph 2 of the order, while the authority has stated that he was aware of the fact that the detenu was in remand in Crime No.66/2010, he has not even whispered that in respect of the other cases in Crime Nos.19, 64 and 65/2010, he was under remand or not so; that under the circumstances, all would clearly indicate the non-application of mind on the part of the authority; that apart from that, the authority could not have arrived at the subjective satisfaction as one required in law, on the basis of the materials placed before him, and hence it has got to be set aside. 6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. It is not in controversy that the detenu is involved in six adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the arrest was actually shown in Crime Nos.19, 64, 65 and 66/2010 on 7.3.2010, and he was also produced before the Court. The arrest memo as found in page No.58 of the booklet, would clearly indicate that he was shown arrest in all the four crime numbers, but when the remand order was made as per the order of the Court as found in page 37 of the booklet, it would refer only to the ground case in Crime No.66/2010, and it does not whisper that whether any order of remand was made in Crime Nos.19, 64 and 65 of 2010. Thus whether he was remanded in Crime Nos.19, 64 and 65 of 2010 remained unknown. It remains to be stated that all the materials in that regard were actually not placed before the detaining authority. That apart, in paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the authority has stated that "I am aware that Thiru. Thus whether he was remanded in Crime Nos.19, 64 and 65 of 2010 remained unknown. It remains to be stated that all the materials in that regard were actually not placed before the detaining authority. That apart, in paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the authority has stated that "I am aware that Thiru. Ramu is in remand in M-5, Ennore Police Station Crime No.66/2010." From the very reading of this, it would be quite clear that the authority has stated that he was aware of the fact that the detenu was remanded to judicial custody in Crime No.66/2010, but has not referred to the other three Crime Nos.19, 64 and 65 of 2010. All would clearly indicate that the necessary documents which were relied upon by the sponsoring authority, were not placed before the detaining authority. 8. Added further, he has not moved for bail in the ground case in Crime No.66/2010; but the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail, and it was without any material, much less cogent material as the law would require. Therefore, both the above grounds, in the considered opinion of the Court, are available to the petitioner to set aside the order. 9. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the second respondent, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.