Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner by name Ranjit @ Ranjit, who was detained as a "Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 03.02.2006, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the detenu was arrested and released on bail in respect of third adverse case, viz., Crime No.1676 of 2005 on the file of Thirumangalam Police Station and the same was considered and relied on by the detaining authority, the copy of the bail order ought to have been supplied to the detenu and since the copy was not supplied to the detenu, the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority is liable to be quashed. 4. First of all, Crime No.1676 of 2005 relates to third adverse case. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that apart from the ground case that took place on 30.01.2006, the detenu was involved in six other cases starting from 2005. It is not in dispute that the detaining authority considered all the adverse cases and after taking note of the ground case, i.e., Crime No.208 of 2006 on the file of K.4 Anna Nagar Police Station and after satisfying himself that the detenu has not moved any bail petition and there is real possibility of coming out on bail by filing bail application and if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and applying his mind with all the materials placed before him, passed the impugned detention order. In such circumstances, merely because copy of bail order in one of the adverse cases has not been supplied, it cannot be claimed that the detention order is to be quashed. We are unable to accept the said contention. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the Tamil version of Accident Register copy. In such circumstances, merely because copy of bail order in one of the adverse cases has not been supplied, it cannot be claimed that the detention order is to be quashed. We are unable to accept the said contention. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the Tamil version of Accident Register copy. The English version of the Accident Register copy is available at page 88 and the Tamil version of the same is available at page 89. We have verified both English and Tamil versions supplied to the detenu and we find no defect or variation in the translation of Accident Register Copy into Tamil. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the fact that the ground case relates to the offences punishable under sections 341, 324, 336, 307, 392 read with 397, 427, 448 and 506 (II) IPC, submitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that the detenu caused injury and in the absence of any such proof or document, the detention order is liable to be interfered with on the ground of non-application of mind. We are unable to accept the said contention. We have already referred to copy of Accident Register, wherein various injuries were mentioned. Even otherwise, a reading of the grounds of detention clearly shows that the detenu committed various offences such as, wrongful restraint, endangering human body, attempt to murder, robbery, trespass, mischief to property and criminal intimidation punishable under Chapter 16, 17 and 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, the above contention is rejected. 7. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the detenu sent a representation on 10.04.2006, it was not properly considered. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed before us the relevant records and submitted that no representation was received either from the detenu or anyone else. We verified the records and we accept the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that no such representation was received by the detaining authority or Government at any point of time. In the light of what is stated above, this petition is dismissed.