Preventive detention orders can be upheld even if there are procedural lapses, such as failure to inform the grounds of arrest, unless it can be demonstrated that such lapses caused the detenu serious prejudice.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., S.Boopathi Raja, aged about 34 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by order in Detention Order No.08 of 2025 dated 05.03.2025 holding him to be a "Sexual Offender" as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised following grounds:

3.1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. Immediately after the order of detention, none of the family members were informed about the detention order, and they were kept in dark regarding status of the detenu. According to the prosecution, brother of the detenu was informed about the arrest of detenu, however, no message was received whatsoever on his mobile phone.

3.2. The detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.02.2025 in pursuant to the registration of an F.I.R in Crime No.5 of 2025 under Sections 3, 4, 5(m), 5(n) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 351 (2) of B.N.S., 2023. In fact, the F.I.R was registered on 03.02.2025 for an occurrence that allegedly took place on 11.10.2024, wherein it was alleged that the detenu misbehaved with a minor victim girl. However, the detention order came to be passed only on 05.03.2025.

3.3. There was an unexplained delay in passing the order of detention. Therefore, there is no live and proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the detention order in respect of the ground case registered in Crime No.5 of 2025. Further, the detenu has been implicated in a serious offence and, even though the bail application filed by the detenu was dismissed, there is no possibility of the detenu coming out on bail subsequently. Hence, preventive detention is not at all warranted.

3.4. The detenu was not served with the reasons and grounds for his arrest. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the documents relied upon by the detaining authority do not contain any particulars in the column relating to the reasons and grounds for arrest. Therefore, the order of detention cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the following Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:

“(i) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in S.L.P. Diary No. 42896 of 2023 dated 15.05.2024

(ii) Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, 2025 Live Law (SC) 169

(iii) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025 Live Law (SC) 1066”

5. Per contra, the second respondent filed a counter-affidavit and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenu was involved in a sexual offence. After registration of the F.I.R, the victim girl was subjected to medical examination and her statement was recorded before the Judicial Officer. After completion of all formalities, the sponsoring authority collected all relevant documents from the concerned authorities and thereafter placed them before the detaining authority, recommending detention of the detenu under Act 14 of 1982.

6. Therefore, there was delay of 30 days in passing the detention order. The detenu was arrested and remanded t