Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rakshitha vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
W.P.H.C. NO. 122 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAKSHITHA
W/O S. C. SANTHOSH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT SAMUDRAVALLI
H. N. PURA ROAD
M. HOSAKOPPALU POST
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. LETHIF., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
RUPA V 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HIGH BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
COURT OF DEPARTMENT OF HOME
KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573 201.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573 201.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON
CENTRAL PRISON
KALBURGI-585 308.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. A. BELLIAPPA, SPP-I WITH
SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP)
THIS W.P.H.C. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THAT TO A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS BY QUASHING OF THE
ORDER OF DETENTION DATED 29.08.2025 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.MAG/300/2025-26, WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-A AND ANNEXURE-A1.
THIS W.P.H.C. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
09.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,
THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV ORDER
(HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This petition is filed by the wife of the detenue
seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the
detention order dated 29.08.2025 passed in No.MAG-
300/2025-26 by the Respondent No. 2 and the
confirmation order dated 10.10.2025 in H.D. 472 SST
2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 and to further writ of
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
habeas corpus directing the respondents to set the
detenue at liberty by releasing him from prison.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition
are that, the detenue has been detained pursuant to the
Order of Detention passed by the respondent No.2 against
the detenue on 29.08.2025 under Section 2(g) of the
Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers,
Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Trafficking
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for being a
habitual offender and repeatedly undertaking activities
punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (for short 'BNS') and in order to prevent him from
further engaging in activities prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. The said order was
confirmed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated
10.10.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order of
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
detention and the consequent confirmation of the said
order, this petition is filed by the wife of the detenue.
3. Sri. B.Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, reiterating the facts and grounds of petition
submits that various documents submitted to the detenue
are illegible copies, which violate the right guaranteed to
the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India to give effective presentation. It is further submitted
that the respondents, without considering the order of bail
in Crime No.29/2025, which was passed prior to the
detention order, have considered the detenue to be
absconding, which amounts to consideration of irrelevant
material. It is submitted that though he has raised other
grounds in the writ petition to attack the order of
detention, he restricts his submissions to the aforesaid
ground. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition and set the
detenue free.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the
following decisions;
(1) Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v State of
Maharashtra and Others1
(2) Sushanta Kumar Banik v State of Tripura and
Others2
(3) Shankara Gouda v The State of Karnataka
and Others3
(4) Rizwan Sharif v The State of Karnataka and
Others4
(5) Rekha v The State of Tamil Nadu and
Another5
(6) Joyi Kitty Joseph v Union of India and
Others6
(7) Jayanarayan Sukul v State of West Bengal7
1
(2012) 2 SCC 72
2
2022 SCC Online SC 1333
3
2015 SCC Online Kar 8200
4
W.P.H.C.No.113/2015 dtd 07.11.2015
5
(2011) 5 SCC 244
6
(2025) 4 SCC 476
7
(1970) 1 SCC 219
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
(8) Amreen v Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru
and Others8
(9) Bhupinder Singh v Union of India and Others9
(10) The State of Manipur and Others v
Buyamayum Abdul Hanan and Another10
(11) M A Ellyas v State of Karnataka and Others11
(12) Makuko Chukwuka Muolokwo v State of
Karnataka and Others12
(13) Karthik v Commissioner of Police and
Others13
(14) Jayamma v Commissioner of Police,
Bengaluru14
Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition by setting
the detenue free.
8
W.P.H.C.No.87/2025 dtd 23.10.2025
9
(1987) 2 SCC 234
10
(2022) 19 SCC 509
11
W.P.H.C No.57/2014 dtd 14.08.2014
12
2020 SCC Online Kar 922
13
W.P.H.C.No.49/2021 dtd 20.09.2021
14
2019 SCC Online Kar 2965
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. Sri.B.A.Belliappa, learned SPP-I with
Sri.Thejesh P, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-
State submits that the order of detention has been passed
after following all procedural requirements and arriving at
subjective satisfaction. It is submitted that the detenue
has been a habitual offender with 14 cases registered
against him under various provisions of IPC and BNS. It is
further submitted that the detenue consistently engaged in
the illegal activities and caused public disorder and to
prevent the same, the said order of detention was passed.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, learned SPP-I appearing for the
respondent-State and perused the material available on
record. We have given our anxious considerations to the
submissions advanced on both sides and material available
on record, the point that arises for consideration in this
petition is;
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
"Whether the impugned order of detention
dated 29.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2
and confirmation order are sustainable under
law?"
6. To appreciate the case on hand, it would be
useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Goonda Act
and they are extracted as under for ready reference:
"3. Power to make orders detaining certain
persons.- (1) The State Government may, if
satisfied with respect to any bootlegger or drug-
offender or gambler or goonda or [Immoral Traffic
Offender or Slum-Grabber or Video or Audio pirate]
that with a view to prevent him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order, it is necessary so to do, make an order
directing that such persons be detained.
(2) If, having regard to the circumstances
prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the
local limits of the jurisdiction of a District
Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State
Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to
do, it may, by order in writing, direct that during
such period as may be specified in the order, such
District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may
also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1),
exercise the powers conferred by the sub-section :
Provided that the period specified in the order
made by the State Government under this sub-
section shall not, in the first instance, exceed three
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
months, but the State Government may, if satisfied
as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend
such order to extend such period from time to time
by any period not exceeding three months at any
one time.
(3) When any order is made under this
section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2),
he shall forthwith report the fact to the State
Government together with the grounds on which
the order has been made and such other particulars
as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter
and no such order shall remain in force for more
than twelve days after the making thereof, unless,
in the meantime, it has been approved by the State
Government.
8. Grounds of order of detention to be
disclosed to persons affected by the order.-
(1) When a person is detained in pursuance
of a detention order, the authority making the
order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than
five days from the date of detention, communicate
to him the grounds on which the order has been
made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity
of making a representation against the order to the
State Government.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require
the authority to disclose facts which it considers to
be against the public interest to disclose.
10. Reference to Advisory Board.-
In every case where a detention order has
been made under this Act the State Government
shall within three weeks from the date of detention
of a person under the order, place before the
Advisory Board constituted by it under section 9,
the grounds on which the order has been made and
the representation, if any, made against the order,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
and in case where the order has been made by an
officer, also the report by such officer under sub-
section (3) of section 3.
11. Procedure of Advisory Board.-
(1) The Advisory Board shall after considering
the materials placed before it and, after calling for
such further information as it may deem necessary
from the State Government or from any person
called for the purpose through the State
Government or from the person concerned, and if,
in any particular case, the Advisory Board considers
it essential so to do or if the person concerned
desire to be heard, after hearing him in person,
submit its report to the State Government, within
seven weeks from the date of detention of the
person concerned.
(2) The report of the Advisory Board shall
specify in a separate part thereof the opinion of the
Advisory Board as to whether or not there is
sufficient cause for the detention of the person
concerned.
(3) When there is a difference of opinion
among the members forming the Advisory Board,
the opinion of the majority of such members shall
be deemed to be the opinion of the Board.
(4) The proceedings of the Advisory Board
and its report, excepting that part of the report in
which the opinion of the Advisory Board is
specified, shall be confidential.
(5) Nothing in this section shall entitle any
person against whom a detention order has been
made to appear by any legal practitioner in any
matter connected with the reference to the
Advisory Board.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
13. Maximum period of detention.-
The maximum period for which any person
may be detained, in pursuance of any detention
order made under this Act which has been
confirmed under section 12 shall be twelve months
from the date of detention."
7. The bare perusal of the aforesaid Sections
indicates that the State Government may, if satisfied with
respect to any "Goonda" as defined under Section 2(g) of
the Goonda Act, with a view to prevent him from acting in
any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order,
pass an order directing such a person to be detained.
Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Goonda Act empowers
the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police to
exercise the powers conferred under sub-Section (1) of
Section 3 of the Goonda Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 3
of the Goonda Act mandates that if the order is passed by
the Officer under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the
Goonda Act, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State
Government along with the grounds on which the order
has been made. The order made by the Officer under sub-
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
Section (2) shall remain in force for 12 days unless in the
meantime, the State Government approves it. Section 8
of the Goonda Act mandates that the grounds of detention
are required to be served on the detenue within 5 days
from the date of detention and shall offer him the earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the order
to the State Government. Section 10 of the Goonda Act
mandates that the order of detention made under the
Goonda Act shall be placed before the Advisory Board
within a period of 3 weeks from the date of detention
order by the State Government along with grounds on
which the order has been made and representation, if any,
made against the order. Section 11 of the Goonda Act
provides the procedure to be followed by the Advisory
Board. The Advisory Board is empowered to consider
providing personal hearing to the detenue and thereafter
submit report to the State Government within 7 weeks
from the date of detention of the person concerned. The
Advisory Board is required to forward its opinion as to
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of
the person concerned. The opinion of the Advisory Board
is confidential. Section 13 of the Goonda Act indicates
that the maximum period for detention is 12 months from
the date of detention.
8. The impugned detention order dated
29.08.2025 is passed by respondent No.2 by recording the
reason that the detenue is aged about 42 years and a
resident of Samudravalli Village of Shanthigrama, Hassan
Taluk, Hassan District and he has been involved in criminal
cases including murder, attempt to murder, assault and
has created fear in the minds of the people. To arrive at
such a conclusion, the authority placed reliance on the
following cases;
(a) Crime No.322/2010 registered by Hassan
Town Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34
of IPC.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
(b) Crime No.26/2011 registered by Hassan
Town Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 341, 504, 324,
506 r/w 34 IPC
(c) Crime No.236/2012 registered by Hassan
Extension Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 427, 323, 324,
504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC
(d) Crime No.02/2014 registered by Hassan
Extension Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections
143,147,148,504,324,323,149 of IPC.
(e) Crime No.13/2014 registered by Hassan
Extension Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections
143,147,148,504,323,427,149 of IPC.
(f) Crime No.258/2025 registered by Hassan
Extension Police Station for the offence
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
punishable under Sections
143,147,148,341, 504,307,149 of IPC.
(g) Crime No.274/2015 registered by Hassan
Extension Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections
143,144,147,148,302,307,149 of IPC.
(h) Crime No. 124/2016 registered by Hassan
Town Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections
143,147,148,307,302,149 of IPC.
(i) Crime No.336/2018 registered by Hassan
Rural Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections
143,147,148,324,307,149 of IPC.
(j) Crime No.180/2021 registered by Hassan
Extension Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections
143,144,364,324,307,149 of IPC.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
(k) Crime No.70/2022 registered by Hassan
Town Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections
143,341,504,506,149 of IPC.
(l) Crime No.116/2022 registered by Hassan
Town Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections
363,364,302,201,114,120b,34 of IPC.
(m) Crime No.142/2023 registered by Hassan
Extension Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections
363,307,384,342,324,504,506,34 of IPC.
(n) Crime No.29/2025 registered by Hassan
Extension Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 352,132 of BNS
Act.
9. The aforesaid crimes were registered against
the detenue and others from 2010 to 2025. The last crime
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
registered against the detenue is in Crime No. 29/2025 on
01.02.2025.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for
petitioner is that the authorities have failed to furnish the
documents to the detenue in a legible format, which has
deprived him of the ability to give effective representation
to the authorities. The representation of the detenue to
the respondent-State against the order of detention clearly
states that several documents submitted to the detenue
were illegible. It is also noticed that the detenue in his
representations submitted to the authority has clearly
referred to those documents, which were illegible. The
respondent-State failed to substantiate the said
contentions by rebutting the same in their statement of
objections or by placing material to that affect. The said
documents were placed before us, it can be clearly seen
that the said documents are illegible. Therefore, the
submitting of illegible copies affects the right of the
detenue to give effective representation, which is a
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India.
11. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harikisan Vs.
State of Maharashtra15
8. We do not agree with the High Court in its
conclusion that in every case communication of the
grounds of detention in English, so long as it
continues to be the official language of the State, is
enough compliance with the requirements of the
Constitution. If the detained person is conversant
with the English language, he will naturally be in a
position to understand the gravamen of the charge
against him and the facts and circumstances on
which the order of detention is based. But to a
person who is not so conversant with the English
language, in order to satisfy the requirements of the
Constitution, the detenue must be given the grounds
in a language which he can understand, and in a
script which he can read, if he is a literate person.
9. The Constitution has guaranteed freedom of
movement throughout the territory of India and has
laid down detailed rules as to arrest and detention. It
has also, by way of limitations upon the freedom of
personal liberty, recognised the right of the State to
legislate for preventive detention, subject to certain
safeguards in favour of the detained person, as laid
down in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22. One of
those safeguards is that the detained person has the
right to be communicated the grounds on which the
order of detention has been made against him, in
15
1962 SCC Online 117
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
order that he may be able to make his representation
against the order of detention. In our opinion, in the
circumstances of this case, it has not been shown
that the appellant had the opportunity, which the law
contemplates in his favour, of making an effective
representation against his detention. On this ground
alone we declare his detention illegal, and set aside
the Order of the High Court and the Order of
Detention passed against him.
12. It would also be useful refer to the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Manipur and Others referred supra, the paragraph No.22
and 23 are extracted below for reference:
"20. What will be the effect of non-supply of
legible copies of the documents relied upon by the
detaining authority has been considered by this Court
in Bhupinder Singh [Bhupinder Singh v. Union of
India, (1987) 2 SCC 234 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 328] as
under : (SCC pp. 234-35, para 1)
"1. On 3-10-1985 the officers of the Enforcement
Directorate searched House No. B.20, Gujranwala
Town, Part II, Delhi and recovered certain quantity of
foreign exchange. It appears that the petitioner was
not immediately available. He was called and
interrogated. He made a statement which was
recorded by the officers of the Enforcement
Directorate. On 19-3-1986 an order for detention of
the petitioner was made by Shri M.L. Wadhawan,
Additional Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New
Delhi. The petitioner was arrested on 16-4-1986 and
served with a copy of the order of detention.
Grounds of detention were served on him four days
later. On 12-5-1986 he was produced before the
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
Advisory Board. He made a complaint before the
Advisory Board that the copies of documents which
were supplied to him alongwith the grounds of
detention were not legible and he also placed before
the Advisory Board a copy of a representation said to
have been made by him for supply of legible copies
of documents. There is a controversy whether this
representation was made on 8-5-1986 or 12-5-1986.
From the original files produced before us we find
that the representation was typed on 8-5-1986, but
actually signed by the detenu on 12-5-1986. But that
would not make any difference for the purposes of
this case. On 19-5-1986 the Under-Secretary to the
Government of India conceded the demand of the
detenu for legible copies of documents and directed
the Directorate of Enforcement to supply a duplicate
set of documents to the petitioner. A copy of this
letter was also sent to the detenu and was
acknowledged by him on 21-5-1986. There is a
controversy as regards the date on which the legible
copies of documents were actually given to the
detenu. According to the detenu they were served on
him on 1-7-1986, whereas according to the counter-
affidavit of Shri S.K. Chowdhry, Under-Secretary in
the Ministry of Finance, the documents were supplied
on 21-6-1986. It does not make any difference
whether the documents were supplied on 21-6-1986
or on 1-7-1986 since we find that even before legible
copies of documents were supplied to the detenu,
the detention order was confirmed on 14-6-1986.
The detenu was thus clearly denied the opportunity
of making a representation and there was therefore a
clear contravention of the right guaranteed by Article
22 of the Constitution. The detenu is entitled to be
set at liberty. We are told that the detenu is now on
parole. He need not surrender."
and later in Manjit Singh Grewal [Manjit Singh
Grewal v. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 59 : 1990
SCC (Cri) 608 (2)] as under : (SCC p. 59, para 3)
"3. It appears that the appellant had asked for
certain copies of the documents which admittedly
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
were there with the respondent--Union of India.
Copies of the documents were supplied, but the
same were not legible. This position is also apparent.
It is not necessary in the facts of this case to go into
the question whether these documents were relevant
or material."
21. The learned counsel also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Ranu
Bhandari [Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari, (2008)
17 SCC 348 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 543] wherein it was
held in paras 27 and 31 as under : (SCC pp. 355-56)
"27. It has also been the consistent view that
when a detention order is passed all the material
relied upon by the detaining authority in making such
an order, must be supplied to the detenu to enable
him to make an effective representation against the
detention order in compliance with Article 22(5) of
the Constitution, irrespective of whether he had
knowledge of the same or not. These have been
recognised by this Court as the minimum safeguards
to ensure that preventive detention laws, which are
an evil necessity, do not become instruments of
oppression in the hands of the authorities concerned
or to avoid criminal proceedings which would entail a
proper investigation.
28-30.***
31. Of course, in Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran
case [Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran v. State of T.N.,
(2000) 9 SCC 170 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1198] it was also
made clear that there is no legal requirement that a
copy of every document mentioned in the order has
to be supplied to the detenu. What is, therefore,
imperative is that copies of such documents which
had been relied upon by the detaining authority for
reaching the satisfaction that in the interest of the
State and its citizens the preventive detention of the
detenu is necessary, have to be supplied to him.
Furthermore, if in this case, the detenu's
representation and writ petition had been placed
before the detaining authority, which according to
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
the detenu contained his entire defence to the
allegations made against him, the same may have
weighed with the detaining authority as to the
necessity of issuing the order of detention at all."
22. Thus, the legal position has been settled by
this Court that the right to make representation is a
fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5)
of the Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of
documents which has been relied upon by the
detaining authority indeed has deprived him in
making an effective representation and denial
thereof will hold the order of detention illegal and not
in accordance with the procedure contemplated
under law.
23. It is the admitted case of the parties that
Respondent 1 has failed to question before the
detaining authority that illegible or blurred copies
were supplied to him which were relied upon while
passing the order of detention, but the right to make
representation being a fundamental right under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution in order to make
effective representation, the detenu is always
entitled to be supplied with the legible copies of the
documents relied upon by the detaining authority
and such information made in the grounds of
detention enables him to make an effective
representation."
13. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that supply of
illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by
the detaining authority deprives the detenue from making
an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5)
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
of the Constitution of India and denial of which is result in
violation of the procedure contemplated under the law for
passing an order of preventive detention.
14. The other contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that in Crime No.29/2025, the Court has
passed an order of bail on 08.07.2025. The said order of
bail has been passed before the order of detention on
29.08.2025. However, the respondents in the grounds of
detention has not considered the said order of bail and
have considered the detenue to be absconding, which is
factually incorrect and the same amounts to non-
consideration of relevant material as well as consideration
of irrelevant material, while arriving at the subjective
satisfaction by the authority.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
AMEENA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA &
OTHERS16 has held in paragraph No.28 as under:
16
(2023) 9 SCC 587
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
"28. In the circumstances of a given case, a
constitutional court when called upon to test the
legality of orders of preventive detention would be
entitled to examine whether:
28.1. The order is based on the requisite satisfaction,
albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the
absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a
matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the
exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine
qua non for the exercise of the power not being
satisfied;
28.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the
detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant
circumstances and the same is not based on material
extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute;
28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the
purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised
for an improper purpose, not authorised by the
statute, and is therefore ultra vires;
28.4. The detaining authority has acted
independently or under the dictation of another body;
28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-
created rules of policy or in any other manner not
authorised by the governing statute, has disabled
itself from applying its mind to the facts of each
individual case;
28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests
on materials which are of rationally probative value,
and the detaining authority has given due regard to
the matters as per the statutory mandate;
28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in
mind existence of a live and proximate link between
the past conduct of a person and the imperative need
to detain him or is based on material which is stale;
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite
satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some
degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as
connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-
matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the
satisfaction is to be reached;
28.9. The grounds on which the order of preventive
detention rests are not vague but are precise,
pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity,
inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention,
giving him the opportunity to make a suitable
representation; and
28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law,
have been strictly adhered to."
16. It would also be useful to refer to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rushikesh
Tanaji Bhoite referred supra, wherein it was the relevant
paragraphs are extracted below for reference:
"9. In a case where the detenu is released on bail
and is enjoying his freedom under the order of the
court at the time of passing the order of detention,
then such order of bail, in our opinion, must be
placed before the detaining authority to enable him
to reach at the proper satisfaction.
10. In the present case, since the order of bail
dated 15-8-2010 was neither placed before the
detaining authority at the time of passing the order
of detention nor the detaining authority was aware of
the order of bail, in our view, the detention order is
rendered invalid. We cannot attempt to assess in
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
what manner and to what extent consideration of the
order granting bail to the detenu would have effected
the satisfaction of the detaining authority but suffice
it to say that non-placing and non-consideration of
the material as vital as the bail order has vitiated the
subjective decision of the detaining authority."
17. It is clear from the aforesaid enunciation of law
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is without
giving due consideration to the relevant material such as
order of bail in a pending case as well as consideration of
an incorrect fact that the detenue is absconding, when the
bail was already granted. Such non-consideration of
relevant material amounts to violation of procedural
safeguards, non-application of mind and arriving at
subjective satisfaction by ignoring relevant material. In the
instant case, it is not in dispute that the order of bail in
Crime No.29/2025 had been passed by the Court before
the passing of the order of detention, but the same was
not placed before the detaining authority for arriving at its
subjective satisfaction. We are also of the considered view
that the order of bail in Crime No.29/2025 was passed
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
after a period of 5 months and nothing had prevented the
authorities from detaining him in the said Crime, before
resorting to passing an order of preventive detention.
Hence, we are of the view of that the order of detention
and the consequent order of confirmation suffers from
non-consideration of relevant material and consideration
of factually incorrect material.
18. Though the petitioner has raised other grounds
in the petition to attack the order of detention, we are of
the considered view that the impugned orders of detention
are required to be interfered on grounds referred supra.
Hence, we need not consider the other contentions and
grounds urged in the petition. Having held that the
detention order under challenge is contrary to law and
requires interference, we are of the considered view that
the impugned order of detention is passed in violation of
the fundamental rights of the detenue guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. For the
aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following:
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10090-DB
WPHC No. 122 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order of detention dated
29.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2,
the confirmation order dated 10.10.2025
passed by respondent No.1 are hereby
quashed.
iii. The respondents are directed to set the
detenue at liberty forthwith, if not
required in any other cases.
iv. Registry is directed to communicate the
operative portion of the order to the
Superintendent of Central Prison,
Kalaburagi forthwith for compliance.
v. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
