MURUGESAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HABEAS corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 27.03.2009 in Memo No,31/BDFGISSV/2009 against petitioner's son Raj @ Raji, Amalraj @ Amulraj, son of Murugesan, aged about 34 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at Liberty. The petitioner challenges an order of the second respondent passed in Memo No,31/BDFGISSV/2009 on 27.3.2009 detaining his son Raj @ Raji @ Amalraj @ Amulraj as a Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records produced by the State.

(3.) THE third point raised by the learned Counsel is that in the detention order it is stated that the detenu has not moved bail application before the XVII M.M. but, the detenu moved bail applications in Crl.M.P.Nos.636, 592 and 637 of 2009 which shows the non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Here also, the records reveal and the total reading of the sentence in paragraph 4 of the detention order clearly shows that the word "not" is only a typographical error, and the Tamil version of the detention order also clearly shows that the detenu moved bail application, and the same was dismissed. So the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same.