Detention orders can be passed for habitual offenders of POSCO Act even in a solitary incident, and the evidence of young victims should be understood in the context of their language and familiarity.

1. Heard Mr. J. Pandidurai, learned counsel for the petitioner in all petitions and Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent in all petitions.

2. In these Habeas Corpus Petitions, the Petitioner - Mother of the Detenu, challenges the orders of detention passed on the Detenu by the second Respondent, branding them as "Sexual Offenders" under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-legers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 14/1982).

3. The case against the detenu is that the defacto complainant's daughter viz. Rudhra is aged about 6 years at the time of occurrence and when her mother took her to take bath, Rudhra pointed out her genitalia and told that it was aching and thereafter, the defacto complainant noticed that there was swelling in the genetalia and on enquiry, she refused to tell the truth and hence, she heat up the child and in the school, when the teacher had enquired the girl informed that on 19.04.2016 while the girl was playing with neighbour children, the detenu viz. Selvam, Nagaraj and Arumugam have taken the child into their house by saying with delicacy manner as to give dress and locked the door and they removed the clothes of the girl and put her in bed and Selvam was pressing to keep his penis on her vagina and buttock and since Rudhra unable to bear the pain, he closed her mouth and involved sexual intercourse with her and other two detenu also have done the same with her and also, they compelled her to have oral sex by sucking their penis by the girl and hence, the case in Crime No. 8 of 2016 has been registered against the detenu for the offence under Section 342 of I.P.C. and Section 5(g) (m) read with 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. During the investigation, it was found that the same detenu had involved in the same offence with another girl by name Easwari @ Nithya.

4. Therefore, consequent upon the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority that the Detenu were involved in POCSO Act, the Detaining Authority, on being satisfied that the Detenu are habitually committing grave crime and are also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and branding them as a "Sexual Offenders" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act No. 14/1982 and if the Detenu come out on bail, they will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the impugned orders of detention.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detaining authority, without applying his mind, passed the impugned order, violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that while recording the subjective satisfaction for imminent possibility for coming out of the bail, the detaining authority, in his order, has stated that in a similar case, one Elumalai released on bail in Cr. M.P. No. 299 of 2015 dated 24.04.2015 in Crime No. 5 of 2015 for the alleged offences under Section 5(m) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and hence, there is a possibility that the petitioner come out on bail. However, according to the petitioner, the said case does not construe as similar case, since he is not co-accused in the present case. The detaining authority has not considered the said aspect, which would show his non application of mind, while passing the detention order. He would further submit that since the petitioner is her neighbour, due to enmity only, she has given the false complaint against the detenu.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit the victim sustained injury, which is alleged to be inflicted by her mother, which shows that with intention to foist a false case, the injury was created. He would further submit that the detenu have been detained as Sexual