Judgment M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. Invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner, namely, Raman, has filed this petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for production of his son, namely, Sakthi @ Sakthivel, aged about 25 years. 2. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that his son Sakthi @ Sakthivel, aged about 25 years, was taken by the 3rd and 4th respondents on 211. 2009 for interrogation, but he did not come back; that when he approached the 3rd and 4th respondents on 012. 2009, he was informed that he was actually in their custody and after enquiry, he will be released; but they did not do so; that thereafter, a telegram was sent to the respondents on 012. 2009 and no action was taken and that under such circumstances, he was constrained to file this petition. 3. In answer, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the alleged detenu was found in possession of a country-made gun and actually, a case was registered on 112. 2009 under section 25(1)(A) of the Indian Arms Act in Crime No.888 of 2009 and he was arrested on the same day at 6.00 AM and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Palacode and thereafter, he is under the judicial custody and under such circumstances, the allegations in the petition are nothing but false in order to escape from the clutches of law and hence, the petition has got to be dismissed. 4. After hearing the submissions, it is quite evident that the petitioners son has been arrested at about 6.00 AM on 112. 2009 in connection with Crime No.888 of 2009 registered under section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act and as on today, he is in judicial remand. Under such circumstances, no question of any forcible taking or keeping him under illegal custody by the respondents, would arise. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition fails and is dismissed.