The gravity and nature of the act are relevant in determining the necessity of detention under the Acts.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, by calling for the records relating to the impugned Detention Order made in Cr.M.P.No.29/2022 dated 09.07.2022 on the file of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar Ditrict, the 2nd respondent herein, branding the petitioner''s husband/detenu by name, Josephraja, son of Joseph Chellappa, aged 49 years as "Sexual Offender", who is now confined at Central Prison. Madurai and quash the same and set him at liberty by producing him before this Court.)

K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.

1. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu Josephraja. He is the accused in Crime No.9 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam. The detenu/Josephraja is the Pastor in the King of King Church situated at North Malayandipatti. The victim is the physically challenged and partially mentally retarded 17 years old girl. On 03.05.2022 at 09.00 p.m, the detenu committed penetrative sexual assault upon the detenu in the said Church premises. So, the respondent police registered the case under Sections 5(k) 5(f) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, the detaining authority slapped the impugned detention order by branding the detenu as "Sexual Offender" under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982"). Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued on the following grounds:

2.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place on 03.05.2022 and the detaining authority passed the detention order on 09.07.2022 and hence the delay in passing the detention order is vitiated the proceedings.

2.2. The detention order passed only on the solitary case of the POCSO offence and hence without any habituality, invocation of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 is vitiated and further, he placed reliance of the judgment reported in 2006 (2) MLJ (Crl) 374(SC) and emphasised that without habituality, the invocation of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 on the basis of the single transaction is not legally valid.

2.3. There was no bail petition pending on the date of passing of detention order and hence, the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority, recording that there was imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, is not in accordance with law.

2.4. The similar case particulars furnished by the detaining authority is not similar in nature and hence there was no application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and he seeks for quashing of the detention order.

2.5. The learned counsel further submitted that AR copy filed in the booklet is not clear and hence, the same affected the right of the detenu from making effective representation.

2.6. There was delay in considering the representation and the same was not properly explained and hence, there is infraction of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

3. Per contra, Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there was no period fixed for invoking the detention order either in the Constitution of India or in the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982. Further, he submitted that the Sponsoring Authority has collected all the relevant documents from various sources and submitted to the Detaining Authority and in the said process, the above period of 45 days accrued in passing detention order did not amount to undue and intentional delay. The consideration of the pendency of bail petition to arrive the subjective satisfaction is not necessary.