HCP(MD)No.966 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 06.11.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

HCP(MD)No.966 of 2023

Syed Ali Fathima

... Petitioner

vs.

1. The Principal Secretary to Government,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,

Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,

Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

3. The Superintendent of Prison,

Palayamkottai Central Prison,

Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records,

connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in

M.H.S.Confdl No.55/2023 dated 13.07.2023 and quash the same and

direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by

name Muhamed Ansari son of Buhari, aged about 46 years, now detained

Page No.1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HCP(MD)No.966 of 2023

as ''Sexual Offender'' at Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court

and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Alagumani

For Respondents

: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar

Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter

'HCP' for the sake of brevity] was listed in the Admission Board on

04.08.2023, a Hon'ble Coordinate Division Bench made the following

order in the Admission Board:

Page No.2 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HCP(MD)No.966 of 2023

2.

It has now become necessary to set out a thumbnail sketch

of factual matrix and we do so in the paragraphs infra.

3.

Today, the captioned matter is in the Final Hearing Board.

4.

Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel on record for petitioner

and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor

for all respondents are before us.

5.

Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for

the sake of convenience and clarity] has been filed by the wife of the

detenu assailing the 'preventive detention order dated 13.07.2023 bearing

reference M.H.S.Confdl No.55/2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive

detention order' for the sake of brevity and convenience]. To be noted,

sponsoring authority has not been arrayed as a respondent and we find

that Station House Officer of Courtallam Police Station, is the sponsoring

authority [hereinafter 'sponsoring authority' for convenience and brevity]

and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned preventive

detention order has been made by second respondent.

Page No.3 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HCP(MD)No.966 of 2023

6.

Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil

Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 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 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of

1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the

detenu is a 'Sexual Offender' within the meaning of Section 2(ggg) of Act

14 of 1982.

7.

The ground case which constitutes sole substratum of the

impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.168 of 2023 on the file

of Courtallam Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 12 read

with 11(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

[hereinafter 'POCSO Act' for brevity] and Section 323 of 'The Indian

Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience

and clarity] and subsequently alered into Sections 9(f), 10, 11(i) read

with 12 of POCSO Act and Section 352 of IPC. Considering the nature of

the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve

into the factual matrix of the case.

Page No.4 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.