Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 1090
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, K.S. Mudagal, JJ.
Savithramma T. - Appellant
Vs.
The Commissioner of Police and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(H.C.) No. 171 of 2016
Decided On : 07-04-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.R. Nanjunda Gowda
For the Respondents: I. Tharanath Poojary
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 22 - Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Act, 1985 – Detentin order - Wife of detenue submits that criminal cases are registered against detenue and that he is already acquitted in four cases - Ten cases are pending consideration - Asserts that in no criminal case detenue has suffered conviction - Respondents have not furnished legible copies of documents relied upon by them for passing impugned orders - Compilation consisting of copies of documents relied upon by respondents for passing impugned preventive detention orders – Whether the impugned orders are liable to be quashed on the ground that some of the copies of the documents supplied to the detenue are illegible? (ii) Whether the non-production of the bail applications and bail orders before the detaining authority renders the impugned orders bad? (iii) Whether the impugned orders suffer from want of proximityHeld , Containing grounds of detention reveals that detenue and his associates were moving in public places with knives, swords and other lethal weapons creating fear in minds of citizens and law abiding citizens - Committed offences like assault, murder, attempt to murder, robbery, dacoity and disturbed public peace and tranquillity - Witnesses were frightened, they either turned hostile or compromised matter - Detaining authority has clearly stated that on enlargement of bail in some criminal cases, detenue resorted to threatening witnesses and making them hostile or to compromise matter - It means that detenue did not mend his ways even on getting himself released on bail – Petition dismiss
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.
1. The petitioner, wife of the detenue N. Narasimhamurthy, has called into question the preventive detention order, dated 15.07.2016 (Annexures A and B) passed by the first respondent and the order, dated 17.08.2016 (Annexure-E) passed by the second respondent continuing the said detention order.
2. Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that hitherto 14 criminal cases are registered against the detenue and that he is already acquitted in four cases. Ten cases are pending consideration. He asserts that in no criminal case the detenue has suffered the conviction.
3. He has raised three specific grounds to attack the impugned orders. Firstly, he submits that the respondents have not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied upon by them for passing the impugned orders. He brings to our notice pages 10, 56, 112, 207, 209 and 212 of the compilation consisting of the copies of the documents relied upon by the respondents for passing the impugned preventive detention orders.
4. He relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Man Jit Singh Grewal Alias Gogi Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 59 wherein the preventive detention order came to be quashed, as the copies of the documents supplied to the detenue were illegible.
5. He also relies on the Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Kapoor Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in (1986) CrLJ 1607 to advance the submission that on the ground that the detenue has failed to raise the ground of incomplete material earlier, he cannot be precluded from raising this ground as there can be no estoppel against the fundamental rights.
6. He has also relied upon the Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 1995 CrLJ 1048 wherein it is held that the non-supply of legible copies of the relied upon documents is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the detention order bad.
7. He also brought to our notice the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Siraj Khan Vs. L. Himingliana & Others reported in 1989 CrLJ 392 wherein it is held that if the detenue is not supplied with the legible and complete copies of the documents, it comes in the way of his submitting effective representation to the detaining authority.
8. Secondly, he submits that the bail orders and the bail applications are not placed before the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He would contend that the impugned orders are vitiated for non-consideration of the relevant materials. He submits that the copies of bail orders and of the bail applications should have been supplied to the detenue also.
9. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 72, he would contend that the non-placing of bail order would vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
10. Thirdly, he submits that the preventive detention order is passed on the basis of some cases registered against the detenue 10 years ago. He would contend that the impugned orders suffer from the want of proximity. He brings to our notice the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Shylamma Vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of Home & Others reported in ILR 2006 Kar. 2725 and submits that there is no proximity between the incidents relied upon by the detaining authority and the passing of the impugned detention orders.
11. Sri I. Tharanath Poojary, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that 13 criminal cases are registered against the detenue. The detenue and his accomplices are gangsters. He submits that neither before the Government nor before the Advisory Board, the detenue has ever raised the grounds which are now being raised in these proceedings. He would contend that the pl
