PUSHPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of the second respondent made in C.M.P.No.17/Goonda/C2/2007, dated 30.12.2007, terming the son of the petitioner, namely Amirtharaj, as Goonda.

(2.) THE affidavit filed in support of the petition and the order under challenge are perused.

(3.) CONTRARY to the above, the learned counsel for the State placed all the dates, on which the representation was made, the consideration of the same, the order of rejection and also the service of the same. Placing reliance on those particulars, the learned counsel for the State would contend that there was no delay at all. So far as the second contention was concerned, it is true that the Detaining Authority has not taken into consideration the last adverse case, namely Crime No.360 of 2007, since it was only a case registered under Section 505(i)(b) IPC and under these circumstances, the non consideration of the same or not referring the dismissal of the bail application in the order would not in any way cause prejudice to the interest of the detenu and hence the habeas corpus petition has got to be dismissed.