Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu himself is the petitioner herein. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the first respondent passed in Memo No.396/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 11.07.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. F-2 Egmore Police Station Crime No.1269/2011 75 CP Act r/w.7(1)(A) CLA Act 2. F-2 Egmore Police Station Crime No.812/2012 392 IPC 3. F-2 Egmore Police Station Crime No.1935/2012 379 IPC 4. D-2 Anna Salai Police Station Crime No.476/2013 392 IPC @ 323 and 397 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.06.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, D-2 Anna Salai Police Station in Crime No.547 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 427, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds, his main submission is that the detaining authority has expressed subjective satisfaction over the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail based on the facts pleaded that the detenu was in remand in the ground case as well as the 4th adverse case. Though the detaining authority has spoken about the remand, the copies of the remand order in respect of the ground case and 4th adverse case were not furnished to the detenu in the booklet and there is nothing to show that such material was placed before the detaining authority at the time of clamping the order of detention and hence it is vitiated. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 5. For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below: "4. I am aware that Thiru.Senthil @ Senthilkumar is in remand in D-2 Anna Salai Police Station Crime Nos.476/2013 and 547/2013 and he moved a bail application for D-2 Anna Salai Police Station Cr.No.547/2013 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.7720/2013 and the same is pending. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru. I am aware that Thiru.Senthil @ Senthilkumar is in remand in D-2 Anna Salai Police Station Crime Nos.476/2013 and 547/2013 and he moved a bail application for D-2 Anna Salai Police Station Cr.No.547/2013 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.7720/2013 and the same is pending. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru. Senthil @ Senthilkumar are taking action to take him on bail in D-2 Anna Salai Police Station Cr.No.476/2013 by filing bail application in the appropriate Court. .... ... ......” 6. As seen from the extracted passage, the subjective satisfaction expressed by the detaining authority that the detenu is in remand in D-2 Anna Salai Police Station Crime Nos.476/2013 and 547/2013 should be based on the remand orders and the remand orders ought to have been furnished by the sponsoring authority. But, a copy of those orders are not found in the booklet supplied to the detenu. There is nothing to show that such material was placed before the detaining authority at the time of clamping the order of detention. Therefore, non-furnishing of the remand orders relied on by the detaining authority would prevent the detenu from making effective representation and the impugned detention order cannot be sustained on that ground. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Senthil @ Senthilkumar, S/o. Gopal, made in BDFGISSV No.396/2013, dated 11.07.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.