2. Since the learned counsel raised for consideration by this court only two contentions we do not find it necessary to set out the facts leading to the detention. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the grounds of detention at page 4 wherein the Detaining Authority has stated as follows;
“Later they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvottiyur and lodged at Central Prison, Chennai as remand prisoners.”
In this connection we also referred to the page 37 of the booklet which contains the remand report. In the remand report it is stated by the Inspector of Police that the marginally noted accused, namely Ramesh and Senthil while trying to escapes from the scene of occurrence ran into thorny fence and sustained injuries and were admitted in Stanley Hospital on 2.1.1999 and effected the arrest of the denenu who at that time was an inpatient and was undergoing treatment. He also referred to the requisition for extension of remand which is at page 39 of the booklet wherein it is also stated that both the accused Ramesh and Senthil are impatient in Stanley Hospital and that their remand period may be extended for another 15 days from 14.1.1999 Therefore on the basis of these documents at page Nos. 37 and 39, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. According to him, the materials placed would show that the detenu was not produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand and that the detenu was in the hospital undergoing treatment where he was arrested and therefore the observation of the Detaining Authority that the detenu were produced before the concerned Magistrate and were remanded by the concerned Magistrate is one arising out of non-application of mind and hence on this ground the order of detention has to be set aside.
3. It is true that at pages 37 and 39 we find the materials to the effect that two accused, namely Ramesh and Senthil were in the hospital at the time of arrest and were taking treatment and their remand was extended while they were in the hospital undergoing treatment. At page 51 of the booklet which is dated 28.1.1999 we find the remand extension report wherein it is mentioned that only Ramesh is still in Stanley Hospital undergoing treatment. Further period of extension is asked for from 28.1.1999 for 15 days. At page No. 52 we find a special report which refers to the remand particulars of both the accused namely, Senthil and Dhamodharan alias Dhamu. In this special report it is stated that the remand in respect of Senthil was extended from 2.1.99 to 14.1.99, 28.1.99 to 11.2.99 and is lodged in Central Prison Chennai. Therefore, on reading of these relevant pages of the booklet, we find that there were sufficient materials before the Detaining Authority to satisfy himself that the detenu was in custody on the date of passing of the order of detention which was on 31.1.1999 The special report reveals that on 31.1.1999, the detenu was lodged as remand prisoner in Central Prison, Chennai. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have to hold that there is no non-application of mind arising in this case with reference to the custody of the detenu and hence the contention that the order of detention is vitiated on the ground, cannot be accepted.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner again submitted that in his representation dated 4.3.1999 the detenu has specifically asked for the copy of the remand order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on 2.1.1999 in Crime No. 890 of the 1998 and inspite of the specific request the same has not been furnished to the detenu. It is no doubt true that the remand order was not produced before the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority, but the Sponsoring Authority has filed a special report before the Detaining Authority wherein the particulars as to the remand relating to the detenu have been fully set out. The detaining Authority has not relied upon the order of remand, but only on the fact that the detenu was in custody which was gathered by the Detaining Authority on the basis of the materials placed before him by way of special report, remand requisitions and the affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority. The Detaining Authority has not relied upon the order of remand. Therefore, under such circumstances, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the detenu has not been furnished the copies of remand order passed by the Magistrate in Crime No. 89 of 1998 inspite of specific request, the order of detention would vitiate on the ground, cannot be accepted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not have any other point for consideration. Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit.