Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. The petitioner is the wife of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1367/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 17.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Crime No.528 of 2011 Section 379 IPC 2. V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Crime No.589 of 2011 Section 379 IPC 3. K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Crime No.720 of 2011 Section 379 IPC 4. T-1, Ambattur Police Station, Crime No.482 of 2011 Sections 392 IPC r/w 34 IPC 5. K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Crime No.798 of 2011 Section 379 IPC 6. V-7, Nolambur Police Station, Crime No.501 of 2011 Sections 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC 7. V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Crime No.959 of 2011 Section 379 IPC 8. V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Crime No.1332 of 2011 Sections 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC 9. K-7, ICF Police Station, Crime No.378 of 2013 Section 379 IPC 10. K-7, ICF Police Station, Crime No.451 of 2013 Section 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 10.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station in Crime No.2269 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the following two grounds: i) There is no material to substantiate that the relatives of Thiru Vijay @ Vijayakanth are taking steps to bail the detenu out in respect of Crime No.2269 of 2013, ground case pending on the file of K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station; and ii) The detention order is pre-dated, i.e.17.10.2013, whereas the remand order was made ready only on 18.10.2013. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed not only with defective material, but also some material given was not corroborated with evidence. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 4. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed not only with defective material, but also some material given was not corroborated with evidence. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission, who would submit that the detenu is involved in offences mostly punishable under Section 379 IPC and therefore, there always exists threat to the life of public in the event of his release. Minor discrepancies do not take away the right of detaining authority in detaining the detenu. He has further submitted that considering the imminent possibility of detenu being released on bail, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace, the detention order was passed solely for the purpose of keeping him in tact for avoidance of untoward incident in the locality. 5. On perusal, it is noticed that the order of detention was passed on 17.10.2013 by the detaining authority, branding the detenu, Vijay @ Vijayakanth, S/o. Velu as Goonda owing to the following subjective satisfaction arrived at by them: “4. I am aware that Thiru. Vijay @ Vijayakanth is in remand in K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No.2269/2013 and he has not moved any bail application for K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No.2269/2013 so far. The sponsoring authority stated that Thiru. Vijay @ Vijayakanth's relatives are taking action to take him out on bail in K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station Cr.No.2269/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court. In a similar case registered at R-4 Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station Cr.No.1173/2011 under Sections 341, 294(b), 307, 392, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.11090/2011. Hence, there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail in K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No.2269/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court, since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further the recourse of normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudical to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further the recourse of normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudical to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me. I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru. Vijay @ Vijayakanth is also a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.” 6. Now, to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside, that the detenu is really entitled to release and his release will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace, it is necessary to consider in depth the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the reciprocation of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The first contention is that there is no material to substantiate the stand of detaining authority that relatives of detenu are taking steps to bail him out. On close reading of the booklet at Page No.174, it is clear that necessary material has been provided to the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority with regard to the fact of relatives taking steps to bail him out in Crime No.2269 of 2013, ground case. Thus, the 1st ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no legs to stand and the same is answered against the detenu. 7. The second ground put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned order is that the remand order was made available only on 18.10.2013 and the detaining authority before even receiving the said order passed the detention order hurriedly on 17.10.2013 itself. 8. 7. The second ground put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned order is that the remand order was made available only on 18.10.2013 and the detaining authority before even receiving the said order passed the detention order hurriedly on 17.10.2013 itself. 8. To the above contention, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has controverted by stating that since the relatives had taken vigorous steps to bail him out as confirmed by the sponsoring authority, there arose necessity to detain the detenu just one day before the remand order was made ready on firmly coming to know the fact of extension till 24.10.2013 and the said order was not produced before the detaining authority at the time of passing detention order. By the said act, no prejudice would be caused to the detenu and minor lapses could not take away the power of detaining authority from detaining the detenu in a public interests and to maintain the public order. The explanation offered by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is well founded and therefore, we find no merit in the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The detenu has 10 adverse cases and one ground case and the offences committed by him are, besides habitual, threat to the life of public and there is every possibility of him coming out on bail and indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace. Moreover, no major or extraordinary ground was pleaded before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner to quash the order of detention, particularly in cases where serious offences are committed by the detenu. Hence, as the detention order has been passed by the detaining authority on analyzing every factor and perusing all material information with full subjective satisfaction, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 10. Therefore, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Vijay @ Vijayakath, S/o. Velu, made in Memo No.1367/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 17.10.2013, is valid and hereby confirmed. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.