Habeas Corpus petition challenging detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 dismissed. Court held that non-supply of victim's statement under BNSS did not prejudice detenu as the document was not relied upon for detention.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
H.C.P.(MD)No.194 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD)No.194 of 2025
S.Annapushpam
... Petitioner
-vs-
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records in detention order passed in C.No.105/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2024, dated 02.11.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the
Page 1 of 7
H.C.P.(MD)No.194 of 2025
same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son namely Mariyappan, S/o.Selvaraj, male, aged 49 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J. )
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu namely Mariyappan, S/o.Selvaraj, aged about 49 years. The detenu had been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No. 105/Detention/C.P.O/TC/2024, dated 02.11.2024, 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 counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
_____________ Page 2 of 7_
H.C.P.(MD)No.194 of 2025
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3. We are informed that during the trial in Spl.S.C.No. 104/2024 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Trichirappalli, the victim had not been cross-examined. The trial had proceeded further for examination of other list witnesses. The detention order in this case had been passed on 02.11.2024 branding him as "Sexual Offender". It is obvious that cross-examination had not been done deliberately. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichirappalli must keep in mind the provision under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, 2012, which is reads as follows:-
"33(5) The Special Court shall ensure that the child is not called repeatedly to testify in the Court."
_____________ Page 3 of 7_
H.C.P.(MD)No.194 of 2025
7 . In State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. Abdullah
Kahder Batcha and another reported in (2009) 1 SCC 333 , it has been held as follows:-
''7. The court has a duty to see whether the non-supply of any document is in any way prejudicial to the case of the detenu. The High Court has not examined as to how the non-supply of the documents called for had any effect on the detenu and/or whether the non-supply was prejudicial to the detenu. Merely because copies of some documents have (sic not) been supplied,
Page 4 of 7
H.C.P.(MD)No.194 of 2025
they cannot by any stretch of imagination be called as relied upon documents. While examining whether non-supply of a document would prejudice a detenu, the court has to examine whether the detenu would be deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of a document. Primarily, the copies which form the ground for detention are to be supplied and non-supply thereof would prejudice the detenu. But documents which are merely referred to for the purpose of narration of facts in that sense cannot be termed to be documents without the supply of which the detenu is prejudiced.''
[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 27.10.2025
am NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No
_____________ Page 5 of 7_
H.C.P.(MD)No.194 of 2025
To
Copy To
The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli for reference in Spl.S.C.No.104 of 2024.
_____________ Page 6 of 7_
H.C.P.(MD)No.194 of 2025
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
am
H.C.P.(MD)No.194 of 2025
27.10.2025
_____________ Page 7 of 7_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether non-supply of victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS prejudiced the detenu's representation?
Whether the detaining authority relied on the unsupplied document to pass the detention order?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. Abdullah Kahder Batcha and anotherRelied on¶37
(2009) 1 SCC 333 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
S.Annapushpam
State of Tamil Nadu
The Commissioner of Police
The Superintendent, Central Prison
C.V.Karthikeyan
R.Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
