Detention of an individual as a 'Sexual Offender' is upheld when based on proper evidence and risk assessment of reoffending.

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu namely Rajendran, son of Chandrasuriyan, aged 59 years. The detenu had been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.28/2024 dated 24.12.2024 holding him to be a “Sexual Offender” as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsels 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 first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu was arrested on 26.11.2024 and the order of detention was passed on 24.12.2024. It had been contended by the learned counsel that there was no live and proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of detention. However, on a perusal of the records, we do not agree with the said point.

4. It is seen from the records that FIR in Crime No.79 of

2024 had been registered by the All Woman Police Station, Perambalur for offences punishable under Sections 9(f), 9(m) and 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 altered into Sections 9(f), 9(m) and 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(xi) and (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on 26.11.2024, on a complaint lodged by the father of the victim child. The detenu was working as a Vocational Teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School, Ammapalayam and the daughter of the complainant had stated that he had sexually assaulted her. On a further investigation, it was found that the detenu had been involved in similarly sexually assaulting totally 10 young children, all around the age of 11 or 12 years. The prosecution necessary had to record the statement of all the children and thereafter, had to record the evidence of other Teachers in the school and also had to examine several other children to find out whether any other victims were involved and thereafter, had to place the material before the Detaining Authority for coming to a subjective satisfaction whether to pass the detention order. It is only natural that this process would take considerable period of time and within a reasonable period of time, the detention order had been passed. We therefore, reject this particular ground raised.

5. The second ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Detaining Authority had stated that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. He had stated that in a similar case, registered in the very same police station/All Woman Police Station, Perambalur in Crime No.07/2022, for offences punishable under Sections 9(f), 9(m), 10, 11(1), 12 and 18 of POCSO Act, 2012, bail had been granted by the Mahila Court, Perambalur. It therefore, had been contended that there is a possibility, if the detenu applies for bail, he might get a favourable order in that regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there were no materials available with the Detaining Authority to come to such a conclusion. In this connection, he placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 2 SCC 664 [T.V.Saravanan @ S.A.R.Prasana Vnkatachaariar Chaturvedi Vs. State Through Secretary & Anr.]

6. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 2 SCC 389 [G. Redd