Is One Incident Enough for Detention? Madras High Court Says Yes For POCSO Sexual Offenders

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench recently refused to interfere with the preventive detention of a 38-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting an eight-year-old girl, dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by his sister who challenged the detention on grounds of delay and non-application of mind by the authorities.

The bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima upheld the detention order issued under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, concluding that it had been validly passed and did not suffer from illegality or procedural lapses.

The petitioner, C. Kayalvizhi, questioned the April 17, 2025 detention order passed against her brother Kannan by the Thanjavur District Collector, contending that the 35-day gap between his arrest and the issuance of the detention order broke the proximate link required to justify preventive detention.

According to her, the detenu was arrested on March 12, 2025 in connection with a case registered by the All Women Police Station, Vallam, for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prolonged delay, she argued, rendered the detention illegal.

She further submitted that the detaining authority had relied on an irrelevant precedent involving a bail granted on default grounds in an unrelated case, and that in the present matter the detenu had no pending bail application on the date of the detention order.

According to her, since her brother's only prior bail plea had been dismissed, there was no real possibility of imminent release that would justify invoking preventive detention powers. The petitioner also contended that the accident register relied upon by the authorities was in Tamil, and the detenu was not furnished a translated copy, thereby violating procedural safeguards.

The State, however, opposed the plea and detailed the chronology of steps taken after the detenu’s arrest. It informed the court that a remand extension report was submitted to the Government on April 19, 2025, approved on April 28, 2025, and subsequently placed before the Advisory Board on May 15, 2025. The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that neither the Constitution nor the preventive detention statute prescribed a strict time limit for issuing a detention order, and that even after a delay, a detention could be sustained if the explanation was reasonable.

Agreeing with the State, the bench held that the detaining authority had provided a satisfactory explanation for the gap between arrest and detention. Court observed that delay alone could not vitiate a detention order if the material showed a continuous process of scrutiny by the authorities.

On the question of the accident register, court noted that although parts of the document were in Tamil, the medical details and injuries were recorded in English, and more importantly, the register had not been relied upon for passing the detention order. It concluded that no prejudice had been caused to the detenu.

Court also rejected the argument that a solitary incident could not justify preventive detention. It held that the alleged act of sexual assault of an eight-year-old was a “serious and heinous” offence impacting society at large, and therefore sufficient to sustain detention under Act 14 of 1982.

Finding no infirmity in the District Collector’s order, the bench dismissed the habeas corpus petition and affirmed the continued detention of the accused. 

Case Title: C.Kayalvizhi vs. The State of Tamil Nadu

Order Date: December 1, 2025

Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima