Dismissed¶25

J. Karuppayi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC24 Sept 2025HCP(MD)/1499/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition dismissed as infructuous on expiry of detention period on 23.09.2025; challenge to Detention Order No.57 of 2024 dated 23.09.2024 by District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni; detainee Ayyappan held in Central Prison, Madurai; writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; connected POCSO trial Special S.C.No.8 of 2025 at Theni with victim child's cross-examination deferred and accused on bail; direction to Special Court Presiding Officer to explain deferral and protect victim from threat; explanation due 10.10.2025; matter called on 10.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Since the period of detention was over on 23.09.2025, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. ¶25

J. Karuppayi Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether a Writ of Habeas Corpus should issue to set aside Detention Order No.57 of 2024 dated 23.09.2024 as illegal and produce the petitioner's brother Ayyappan, detained in Central Prison, Madurai, and set him at liberty. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Since the period of detention was over on 23.09.2025, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The court found that in Special S.C.No.8 of 2025 the victim child and near relatives (L.W.1-L.W.3) were examined in chief but not cross-examined while the accused was on bail, and inferred that the Special Judge was aware that once the detention order expired on 23.09.2025 the accused would be free on executing sureties and in a position to threaten the not-yet-cross-examined victim.

¶30

Key takeaways

The learned Presiding Officer, Special Court for POCSO cases, Theni is directed to give necessary explanation on the deferral of the victim child's cross-examination and the provision under which permission was granted, and to indicate the steps the Court intends to take to protect the victim child from intimidation or threat by the accused; explanation to be forwarded to this Court by 10.10.2025.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Petition (Madurai Bench) No.1499 of 2024 filed by J.Karuppayi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of Detention Order No.57 of 2024 dated 23.09.2024 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni, and release of her brother Ayyappan detained in Central Prison, Madurai, was dismissed as infructuous, the period of detention having ended on 23.09.2025. The court noted that in the connected trial (Special S.C.No.8 of 2025, Special Court for POCSO cases, Theni) the victim child and near relatives (L.W.1-L.W.3) had been examined in chief but not cross-examined, further witnesses (L.W.4-L.W.6) were examined in chief, and the accused had been granted bail; it inferred the Special Judge knew the accused would be free on sureties after detention expired and able to threaten the un-cross-examined victim. The learned Presiding Officer was directed to explain, by 10.10.2025, how and under what provision cross-examination of the victim child was deferred and what steps the Court will take to protect her from intimidation by the accused; the Registry was to communicate the order, a copy marked to the Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act cases, Theni, and the matter was called on 10.10.2025.

¶1

H.C.P.(MD)No.1499 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.(MD)No.1499 of 2024

J.Karuppayi

... Petitioner

-vs-

State through Tamilnadu, Rep by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

¶11

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George,

¶12

Chennai - 600 009.

¶13

The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District.

¶14

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Detention Order No.57 of 2024 dated 23.09.2024 and set aside the same

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

H.C.P.(MD)No.1499 of 2024

¶19

as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's brother namely Ayyappan, S/o.Rasu, Male aged about 40 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shanmugam For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is stated that the

¶24

period of detention was over on 23.09.2025.

¶25

2. In view of the above, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶26

3. We are constrained to note that during trial in Special S.C.No.8 of 2025 before the Special Court for POCSO cases at Theni, relating to the offences involved in this case, the learned trial Judge had

¶27

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶28

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

¶29

H.C.P.(MD)No.1499 of 2024

¶30

examined in chief L.W.1, 2 and 3, who are the victim child and near relatives. But all the three witnesses had not been cross examined and further witnesses have been examined in chief viz., L.W.4 to L.W.6. The accused had been granted bail by the trial Court. This would evidently mean that the Special Judge was aware that once the detention order is over on 23.09.2025, the accused would be free on executing sureties and would be in a position to threaten the victim, as she had not yet been cross examined.

¶31

4 . The learned Presiding Officer, Special Court for POCSO

¶32

cases, Theni to give necessary explanation as to how he permitted cross examination of the victim child to be deferred and under what provision he had granted such permission. The learned Presiding Officer may also indicate the steps the Court intends to take to protect the victim child on intimidation of threat from the accused, whose period of detention has also expired on 23.09.2025 and also had obtained bail and also executed sureties. Explanation to be forwarded to this Court by 10.10.2025.

¶33

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶34

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

¶35

H.C.P.(MD)No.1499 of 2024

¶36

5. The Registry to issue necessary Communication in this

¶37

regard.

¶38

6. Call on 10.10.2025.

¶39

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] vsm 24.09.2025 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

¶40

Note:Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act cases, Theni

¶41

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶42

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

¶43

H.C.P.(MD)No.1499 of 2024

¶44

¶45

The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶46