Even Solitary Incident Of Sexual Offence Against Minor Can Be Considered To Pass Detention Order: Madras High Court
Upasana Sajeev
9 Dec 2025 3:00 PM IST
The Madras High Court recently observed that sexual offences against a minor is a heinous crime against society and even a single incident could be considered for detaining such an accused.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima rejected a detenu's argument that the detaining authority could not invoke the provisions for a solitary incident. The court observed as under,
“The further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that under the Act 14 of 1982 [Tamil Nadu Goondas Act] the detaining authority has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions for a solitary incident, and more particularly, that the said act of the detenu did not have sufficient impact on society so as to cause disturbance to public order, is not acceptable. This is for the sole reason that the detenu committed a sexual offence against a minor victim girl aged 8 years. Therefore, the detenu has committed an offence against society, and it is a serious and heinous one. Hence, even a solitary incident can be considered for passing the detention order.”
The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman against her brother's detention as a “sexual offender” under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The detenu was accused in an offence punishable under Sections 5(l), 5(m) read with 6(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Section 87 of BNS Act. The detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on March 12, 2025. Thereafter, he was detained on April 17, 2025.
Challenging the detention, it was argued that the detenu was arrested on March 12, but was detained only in April 17, after a lapse of 35 days. It was argued that there was no proximate and live link. It was also argued that on the date of detention, the detenu had not filed any bail application nor was any application pending and thus, there was no absolute apprehension that the detenu would be released on bail. It was argued that the detention order was passed without application of mind.
The petitioner also argued that the detenu was not given a translated copy of the accident register, which was in Tamil and relied upon by the authority while passing the order.
The court noted that though the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, a remand extension report was submitted before the government. The court noted that delay in passing the detention order from the fate of the arrest is not an ipso facto ground for quashing the detention order, when an acceptable and reasonable explanation is given for the delay.
With respect to the accident register, the court noted that the same was not relied upon for passing the detention order. The court also noted that the address and details of injuries suffered by the victim were recorded in English and thus no prejudice would be caused to the detenu.
Thus, upon considering all the factors, the court observed that there was no illegality or infirmity in the detention order and thus dismissed the plea.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppsamay Pandiyan
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: C Kayalvizhi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
Case No: H.C.P(MD)No.593 of 2025