Case Note & Summary
The habeas corpus petition was filed by the father of the detenu, challenging a preventive detention order passed by the District Magistrate of Thoothukudi under a preventive detention law. The detenu was accused of offences under Sections 5(1), 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Crime No. 7 of 2024, for allegedly enticing and impregnating a minor girl. The detention order, dated 19.07.2024, was predicated on the ground that the detenu might be released on bail and pose a threat to public order. The petitioner contended that the detaining authority had not applied its mind, as no reasons were given for the subjective satisfaction that the detenu’s activities were prejudicial to public order. It was also argued that the victim’s age was not properly verified, that illegible copies of remand orders were supplied, and that a bail order in a dissimilar case was erroneously relied upon. The State, in its counter-affidavit, asserted that the victim’s age was confirmed through a birth certificate (date of birth 25.06.2007), that she was three months pregnant, and that the detenu, a married man, had enticed her. The State maintained that the detenu’s release would prejudice public peace and that legible copies had been provided. The court examined the detention order and found that it contained no particulars regarding any bail application filed or likely to be filed by the detenu. The court held that the mere likelihood of coming out on bail cannot be the sole basis for preventive detention. Additionally, the facts did not indicate that the detenu had a propensity to commit offences against children generally; the case appeared to stem from an Instagram relationship between the detenu and the victim, who was about 17 years old at the time. Consequently, the court concluded that the detention order suffered from non-application of mind and lack of material to justify preventive detention. The habeas corpus petition was allowed, the detention order dated 19.07.2024 was quashed, and the detenu was ordered to be set at liberty unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Subjective Satisfaction and Public Order - Preventive Detention Law - The detenu was detained for an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; the court found that the detention order did not disclose any particulars about any bail application filed or to be filed, and the likelihood of coming out on bail alone cannot be the sole ground for invoking preventive detention; there was no evidence of propensity to commit offences against children generally; the relationship appeared to be an Instagram love with a victim aged about 17, not indicating a threat to public order. Held, the detention order was invalid and quashed (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether preventive detention order based solely on likelihood of bail, without material demonstrating propensity to commit similar offences or threat to public order, is legally sustainable.
Final Decision
The detention order dated 19.07.2024 is quashed. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty unless required in any other case. The habeas corpus petition is allowed.
Law Points
- Preventive detention cannot be based solely on likelihood of bail
- subjective satisfaction must be based on material showing propensity to commit offences
- detention order must disclose application of mind to public order
