Judgment :- (Petition under article 226 of the constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely Vijayakumar, s/o. Subbaiah, who is detained as per the order of detention passed by the first respondent in C.P.O./T.C./I.S./D.O.No.40/05dated 9.10.05 and confined at central prison, Trichy and set him at liberty and further direction to call for the records relating to the above said order.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu by name Vijayakumar. She challenges the impugned order of the detention dated 09.10.2005, detaining her son as 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). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned government advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The learned government advocate has furnished details with regard to the disposal of the representation. On going through the same, if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that there is no undue delay, as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the said contention is also liable to be rejected. 4. By pointing out certain discrepancies in mentioning the offences, said to have been committed by the detenu, by the witnesses and the inspector of police, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority has not applied his mind with regard to the same. We verified the statement of the witnesses and the inspector of police. They have mentioned sections 392, 393 and 395 I.P.C. first of all, this is a statement of the witnesses. We cannot expect accurate provision from the witnesses. Hence, we find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is also discrepancy in describing the "watch" said to have been recovered from the detenu. As rightly pointed out in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority merely refers "watch" and there is no discrepancy anywhere, as claimed by the petitioner. The said contention is also liable to be rejected. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is also discrepancy in describing the "watch" said to have been recovered from the detenu. As rightly pointed out in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority merely refers "watch" and there is no discrepancy anywhere, as claimed by the petitioner. The said contention is also liable to be rejected. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention. According to him, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and in such circumstances, the detention order is not warranted. Here again, we are unable to accept the said contention. A perusal of the paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention makes it clear that the detaining authority was aware of the relevant fact that the detenu was in remand in K.K. Nagar police station crime no.351 of 2005 and 356 of 2005 and has not moved any bail application. Considering the fact that there is no bar in filing bail application and if he files any such application, he will come out on bail by an order of the court and taking note of the fact that if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detaining authority, after satisfying with the materials placed before him, passed the detention order. Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention also. 7. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no one was intimated regarding the passing of the detention order. The learned government advocate by placing the records brought to our notice that his wife and mother were intimated on 09.10.2005 itself. A perusal of the file amply supports the above statement. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also. 8. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. The Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.