Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72074
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, R. Poornima, JJ
Kayalvizhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
H.C.P(MD)No.593 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Karuppsamay Pandiyan
For the Respondents: T. Senthil Kumar
A detention order for a 'Sexual Offender' under Act 14 of 1982 is valid even based on a solitary heinous act against a minor, and a reasonable delay between arrest and detention does not ipso facto invalidate the order.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged a detention order passed under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, identifying the detenu as a 'Sexual Offender' following charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and BNS Act, 2023. The petitioner contended that a 35-day delay between arrest and detention broke the proximate link, and that the failure to provide a translated accident register violated the detenu's rights. The court found that the detaining authority provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the accident register's English portions were sufficient to avoid prejudice. The court addressed whether a delay in issuing the detention order or a solitary heinous act is sufficient for detention. It held that neither the Constitution nor Act 14 of 1982 prescribes a strict timeline for such orders, provided the delay is reasonable. Furthermore, the court reasoned that a serious sexual offense against a minor girl constitutes an offense against society and a disturbance to public order, justifying detention even for a solitary incident. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of detention under act 14 of 1982 for sexual offenses. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. reasonable delay in issuing detention orders does not invalidate them. (Para 4 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. lack of translation for non-essential documents does not cause prejudice. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. solitary heinous crimes against minors justify preventive detention for public order. (Para 12) |
| 5. dismissal of petition due to lack of illegality in detention order. (Para 13) |
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents herein to produce the detenu Kannan S/o.Chinnaswamy, aged 38 years who has been termed as “Sexual Offender” who is now confined in Trichirapalli Central Prison, Trichy and call for records in P.D.No.19 of 2025 dated 17.04.2025 passed by the second respondent and set aside the same and set the detenu at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppsamay Pandiyan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)
The petitioner is the sister of the detenu viz., Kannan, son of Chinnaswamy, aged about 38 years. The detenu was detained by the second respondent by order in P.D.No.19 of 2025 dated 17.04.2025, 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 detenu was involved in a case registered in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vallam, Tanjore District for the offences punishable under Sections 5(l), 5(m) read with 6(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 87 of BNS Act, 2023 . The detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.03.2025. Thereafter, he was detained under Act 14 of 1982 on 17.04.2025.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the detenu was arrested on 12.03.2025 and he was detained under Act 14 of 1982 only on 17.04.2025, after a lapse of 35 days.Therefore, there is no proximate and live link in respect of the gap of 35 days to detain the detenu. Hence, it is an illegal detention and the order of detention cannot be sustained in law.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the detaining authority relied upon a similar case in which the accused was granted bail in Crime No.3 of 2020 on the file of the Thiruvaiyaru All Women Police Station, Tanjore District for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 506(i) of IPC. The accused was granted bail on default grounds under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said order cannot be relied upon to detain the detenu.
6.That apart, on the date of the detention order, the detenu had not filed any application for bail and no application was pending on the date. On only one occasion, the detenu filed an application forbail and the same was dismissed. Therefore, there was no absolute apprehension that the detenu would be released on bail. This clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the detention order.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the accident register relied upon by the detaining authority is in Tamil. Though the detenu requested a translated copy of the accident register, he was not furnished with the same. Therefore, the order of detention cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
8.On perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent and also on the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is revealed that though the detenu was arreste
