SUSAMMA BABY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu Josephraja. He is the accused in Crime No.9 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam. The detenu/Josephraja is the Pastor in the King of King Church situated at North Malayandipatti. The victim is the physically challenged and partially mentally retarded 17 years old girl. On 3/5/2022 at 09.00 p.m, the detenu committed penetrative sexual assault upon the detenu in the said Church premises. So, the respondent police registered the case under Ss. 5(k) 5(f) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, the detaining authority slapped the impugned detention order by branding the detenu as "Sexual Offender" under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982"). Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued on the following grounds:

(3.) Per contra, Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there was no period fixed for invoking the detention order either in the Constitution of India or in the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982. Further, he submitted that the Sponsoring Authority has collected all the relevant documents from various sources and submitted to the Detaining Authority and in the said process, the above period of 45 days accrued in passing detention order did not amount to undue and intentional delay. The consideration of the pendency of bail petition to arrive the subjective satisfaction is not necessary. Even without considering the said pendency, the authority might arrive the conclusion considering the imminent possibility of coming out on bail on the facts of each case. More particularly, in this case, the statutory period for obtaining the bail is ahead and hence the detaining authority with satisfaction of all relevant materials, passed the detention order. The illegible AR copy is not a relied document and hence, the detenu's plea of affecting his right to make representation upon perusal of AR copy is without substance. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authority has no jurisdiction to invoke the jurisdiction of the Act on the solitary case cannot be accepted, since the definition under "Sexual Offender" did not demand the habituality, even propensity of the single incident justifies the invocation of the preventive detention Act. More particularly, in this case, Pastor has committed the penetrative sexual assault upon the partially mentally retarded and physically challenged minor victim girl in the Church premises which create panic in the mind of the people. He further submitted that there was no delay in considering the representation and the said representation was properly considered by the authorities and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this Habeas Corpus Petition.