K.MeenaD/o.Kaliyaperumal v. Superintendent of Police,Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.4.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Cuddalore.5.The Inspector

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds have been raised in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his arguments on the following grounds, viz.,(i) the language known to the detenu is Tamil, whereas, the Accident Register, which was relied on by the detaining authority was furnished to the detenu only in English, which the detenu is not conversant with; (ii) the detenu had moved a bail application in the ground case in Crime No.17 of 2025 in Crl.M.P.No.812 of 2025, which came to be dismissed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai. However, while passing the impugned detention order, the detaining authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by relying on bail orders dated 19.03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.318 of 2025 and 21.03.2023 in Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1379 of 2025 Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2023, wherein statutory bail was granted to one Narayanasamy, S/o.Kathan and Senivasan, S/o.Sundaramoorthy, respectively.

Thus, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated on these grounds and the same is liable to be quashed.4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim, aged about 15 years, is a school going child and that the detenu, aged about 35 years had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim. Based on the complaint lodged by the victim, a case in Crime No.17 of 2025 came to be registered against the detenu for the offences under Sections 6 read with 5(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Amendment Act, 2019) and Sections 131 and 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He further submitted that after taking into consideration the serious nature of the offence committed by the detenu and upon a careful perusal of connected materials and evidence, the detaining authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction and passed the impugned detention order after due application of mind.5.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1379 of 2025learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the detenu, aged about 35 years, is alleged to have committed penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl, aged about 15 years, which is a matter of grave concern to society. 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 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.