The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Detaining Authority to apply their mind and ensure the accuracy of the grounds for detention under the relevant legal provisions.

1. The petitioner is the detenu. He has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.44/2015, dated 07.12.2015, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in Crime No.815 of 2015 registered on the file of Suchindrum Police Station for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 342, 323, 307 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and the following two adverse cases:

(i) Crime No.82 of 2014 registered on the file of Boothapandy Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code @ 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; and

(ii) Crime No.297 of 2014 registered on the file of Marthandam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii), 302 of the Indian Penal Code @ 341, 294(b), 506(ii) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfaction that the detenu conformed to the definition of "Goonda" and that his presence at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and also expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that the detenu would come out on bail in the ground case, passed the impugned detention order. The said order is challenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

3. Though the order of detention is assailed on several grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to raise additional grounds and after considering the prayer, we permit the same. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the additional grounds, which are as follows:

“In the first adverse case namely, Crime No.82 of 2014 of Boothapandy Police Station, arrest intimation was not given to a family member or a friend of the detenu. The said aspect is obvious from the signature of one Andro, which is found in the Arrest Memo dated 19.04.2014. After furnishing a copy of the said Arrest Memo, the Sponsoring Authority also supplied a clean copy and both are available in the booklet supplied to the detenu. In the Arrest Memo, a copy of which is found at page No.21, in Column No.2, only the crime number and the penal provisions are mentioned, without mentioning the police station in which the said crime number was registered, and in Column No.7, the place of detention was shown to be………without mentioning the name of the police station. Though Salini, wife of the detenu was noted to be the person to whom arrest intimation was given, the Arrest Memo was signed by another person by name Andro as witness who got intimation, whereas, all the omissions found in the Arrest Memo came to be supplied in the clean copy, besides wrongly stating the name of the person signed as witness to be Salini”. A comparison of the both will show that there is a material difference between the two. The said discrepancies are found in the copies of documents available at page Nos.21 and 23 of the booklet. The said discrepancies were not adverted to by the Detaining Authority. Had the Detaining Authority adverted to the same, he would have called for a clarification and the fact that he had not called for a clarification regarding the same, will show non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority regarding a relied on material and mechanical signing of the order of detention prepared by his subordinates or police.

5. The submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in reply to the above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also heard.

6. A perusal of the copy of Arrest Memo in the first adverse case which is available at Page No.21 of the booklet supplied to the detenu shows that in column No.2, the arrest intimation did not mention the name of the police station, but the Crime number and penal provisions alone came to be noted as Crime No.82/2014 under Sections 341, 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) IPC. The place o