Habeas corpus petition by brother of a detenu detained as a 'Sexual Offender' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, contending the bail-likelihood inference was baseless since no bail application was pending. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the detention order and dismissed the petition.
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.
HCP.No.1396 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.01.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.1396 of 2025
Selvam
... Petitioner
Vs.
State Represented by
Page 1 of 7
HCP.No.1396 of 2025 PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in No.274/BCDFGISSSV/2025 dated 23.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce Durai, Son of Muthusamy, aged about 48 years, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Pugazh Nandhan For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)
The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu viz., Durai, S/o.Muthusamy, aged about 48 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 23.05.2025 bearing reference No.274/BCDFGISSSV/2025, slapped on his brother (the detenu), branding him as "Sexual Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Page 2 of 7
HCP.No.1396 of 2025 Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
detenu is a Sexual Offender. The victim, aged about eight years is a physically challenged child (deaf and dumb). Taking advantage of the Page 3 of 7
HCP.No.1396 of 2025 vulnerability, the detenu committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim more than once. Hence, based on the complaint lodged by the mother of the victim, a case in Crime No. 9 of 2025 was registered against the detenu for the offences under Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 96 and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He further submitted that after taking into consideration the serious nature of offence committed by the detenu and upon a careful perusal of connected materials and evidences, the detaining authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction and took a well-considered decision to detain the detenu under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as “Sexual Offender” and passed the impugned order of detention and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner.
5. The victim, aged about 8 years, is a physically challenged child. The detenu, aged about 48 years, had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim. We have carefully perused the entire materials available on record. Having regard to the grave and serious nature of the offences, the sponsoring authority, upon arriving at a subjective satisfaction that recourse to ordinary law would not suffice to prevent the Page 4 of 7
HCP.No.1396 of 2025 detenu from indulging in such activities, has rightly sponsored the detenu
before the Detaining Authority for detention under Act Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Detaining Authority, on considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and upon due application of mind at every stage, has validly passed the order of detention against the detenu. We do not find any illegality or irregularity, warranting interference by this Court. This Court further finds that no legally sustainable ground has
been made out to quash the order of detention and the grounds urged by the petitioner do not merit acceptance.
6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.
[P.V.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
05.01.2026
Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation Speaking / Non Speaking ms
Page 5 of 7
HCP.No.1396 of 2025
Page 6 of 7
HCP.No.1396 of 2025
P.VELMURUGAN, J., AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
ms
H.C.P.No.1396 of 2025
05.01.2026
Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the detention order was vitiated because the Detaining Authority assumed the detenu was likely to be released on bail when no bail application had been filed.
Whether the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in branding the detenu a 'Sexual Offender' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 was sustainable.
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Selvam
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
The Inspector of Police, W.13 All Women Police Station, Washermenpet, Chennai
P.Velmurugan
M.Jothiraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
