Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.N. Phaneendra, K. Natarajan, JJ.
JAYAMMA - Appellant
Vs.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU - Respondent
W P H C No. 102 of 2018
Decided On : 08-03-2019
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 22(5), clause (6) of Article 22 - Violation of bail conditions and acquittal orders are referred to in the orders - Grounds of detention - Appeal against acquittal - Petitioner detenu Ravikumar was taken into custody vide Detention Order noted detention order is called in question on various grounds before this court - Though number of grounds have been taken, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has concentrated himself on some of the material grounds, and has elaborately argued before this court - Grounds urged before court by the learned counsel - Language used in the detention order while furnishing the English and Kannada version of the detention order, there are lot of differences and some of the documents furnished to detenu, were not translated and they are not in Kannada language - contended that all the documents which were referred to and relied upon by the detaining authority have not been furnished to the detenu particularly the bail orders passed in various cases releasing the accused on bail - contended that the accused detenu was acquitted in many cases and those acquittal judgments were neither furnished to the detenu nor it was secured and considered by the detaining authority or the other authorities - learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the documents which are furnished to the detenu, which were in two volumes, which is also admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General. At paragraph 15 of the petition, it is specifically mentioned that the documents - detention order reveals that the detaining authority has relied upon the facts that, there is violation of bail conditions in some of the cases by the detenu, but no bail orders have been furnished in order to establish which are the conditions violated by the detenu. But those bail orders were not secured and considered by the detaining authority or the Government – Held, Advisory Board shall maintain records disclosing the date of receipt of the detention order and other materials, including the representation of the detenu. The Advisory Board shall consider all the materials placed before it, including the representation if any of the detenu, if necessary after calling for such further information as it deems it necessary, and if the person concerned desires to be heard, after hearing him in person and then send its report to the Government within Seven Weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned - Government before passing any order of confirmation under section 12 of the act shall consider the representation of the detenu, if not already considered by it for reasons that, it was either directly submitted before the advisory board or the sub delegated Authority or received later after the Advisory Boards report. Therefore, it is mandatory that appropriate Government shall consider the representation of the detenu, at least once at any stage before passing the final order of confirmation - stating that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned the Government, may confirm or revoke the said order. If the report says that there is no sufficient cause for detention, the Government, shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forth with. It has no discretion to detain such person any more for any reason on the basis of such detention order - detaining authority shall forth with release such person from detention. Further the detaining authority shall not pass any extended or further detention order on the same grounds - Writ Petition Habeas Corpus is allowed
K.N. Phaneendra, J.
The Writ Petitioner Smt. Jayamma, who is the mother of one Ravikumar @ Kumara @ Tango s/o. Ramanna of Shettipura, Halagere post, Amruthur Taluk, Tumkur District has filed this Writ Petition Habeus Corpus for the following reliefs:
(a) Declare the detention of Sri. Ravi Kumar @ Kumara @ Tango, S/o Ramanna, by Order No. 14/CRM(4)/DTN/2018 dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure "A" and "B") passed by Respondent No.1 and approved by the Respondent No.2 by order No.HD490 SST 2018 dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure "E") and confirmed by the Respondent No.2 by Order No.HD 490 SST 2018 dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure "F") as illegal and void abinitio.
(b) Pass such order or orders declaring the order of Detention, the Order of Approval and the Order of Confirmation, as illegal and abinitio void.
(c) Pass such other orders including release of the Detenu forthwith.
(d) Award Costs.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the detenu Ravikumar was taken into custody vide Detention Order noted above dated 29.8.2018. The said detention order is called in question on various grounds before this court. Though number of grounds have been taken, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has concentrated himself on some of the material grounds, and has elaborately argued before this court. The grounds urged before this court by the learned counsel are that:
(1) Firstly, with reference to the language used in the detention order while furnishing the English and Kannada version of the detention order, there are lot of differences and some of the documents furnished to the detenu, were not translated and they are not in Kannada language.
(2) Secondly, it is contended that all the documents which were referred to and relied upon by the detaining authority have not been furnished to the detenu particularly the bail orders passed in various cases releasing the accused on bail.
(3) Thirdly, it is contended that the accused detenu was acquitted in many cases and those acquittal judgments were neither furnished to the detenu nor it was secured and considered by the detaining authority or the other authorities.
(4) Fourthly, it is contended that some of the copies furnished to the detenu, are illegible copies and not readable. Therefore, the detention order is illegal, as the detenu could not make effective representation.
(5) Lastly, it is contended that, there was no consideration of the representation either by the detaining authority or by the Government before passing the detention order or even before confirming the detention order, by the Government.
Therefore, the learned counsel submits that for all the above said reasons, the order of detention is vitiated by serious incurable defects. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
3. Regarding GROUNDS 1 TO 4:
Elaborating his arguments on the above grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the documents which are furnished to the detenu, which were in two volumes, which is also admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General. At paragraph 15 of the petition, it is specifically mentioned that the documents at pages 44, 75-78, 90-198, 220-233, 251-261, 264, 295- 316, 337-365, 410-435, 454-486, 504-520, 536-539, 560- 563, 601-630, 718-722, 744-785, 794-813, 876-983, 994- 996 are in English language which are the order sheets passed in various criminal cases registered against the detenu and no translation of those documents in kannada language have been furnished.
4. It is further contended that, the detention order reveals that the detaining authority has relied upon the facts that, there is violation of bail conditions in some of the cases by the detenu, but no bail orders have been furnished in order to establish which are the conditions violated by the detenu. But those bail orders were not secured and considered by the detaining authority or the Government.
5. It is also contended that in some of the cases, detenu has been acquitted particularly with reference to Cri
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
