IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.Somashekar, Rajesh Rai K, JJ.
Sri. Mohammad Shafiulla, S/o Late Abdul Jabbar Sab - Petitioner
Versus
The D.G. And I.G.P. of Police Bengaluru - Respondents
WPHC NO.75 OF 2023
Decided On : 07-12-2023
Habeas Corpus - Detention Order - The Karnataka Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, [Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers And Video Or Audio Pirates] Act, 1985 - Sections 3, 8, 10, 11, 13
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, father of the detenu, sought a Writ of Habeas Corpus to challenge the detention order under the Goonda Act. The detenu was alleged to be a habitual offender and a threat to society, leading to his detention. The petitioner argued that the detenu was not provided with legible documents and was unable to effectively represent against the detention order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was unsustainable under the law due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, including the failure to provide legible documents to the detenu and the lack of timely submission of materials to the Advisory Board. The court also held that the detaining authority failed to consider judicial orders related to the detenu's previous cases.
Issues: Sustainability of the detention order under the Goonda Act, compliance with procedural requirements, and consideration of judicial orders related to the detenu's previous cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements, including providing legible documents to the detenu and timely submission of materials to the Advisory Board. The court also highlighted the necessity of considering judicial orders related to the detenu's previous cases.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the detention order, confirmation order, and extension order, and directed the release of the detenu. No costs were awarded.
ORDER :
Rajesh Rai.K, J.
Petitioner being the father of the detenu namely, Sri. Roshan Jameer @ Jameer @ Jammu, has approached this Court praying for a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty and also to quash the impugned detention order bearing No. MAG(2) CR/L&O (G)/02/2023-24 dated 27.04.2023.
2. Brief factual matrix of the case are as follows:-
One Sri. Roshan Jameer @ Jameer @ Jammu (hereinafter called as 'detenu') who is alleged to be an offender and also a threat to the society as he was involved in several crimes since, 2013, the respondent No.4 passed an order of detention in consonance with the provisions of The Karnataka Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, [Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers And Video Or Audio Pirates] Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'Goonda Act') vide order bearing No.MAG(2)CR/L&O (G)/02/2023-24 dated 27.04.2023. The same was communicated to the detenu along with the compilation of document explaining his detention on 27.04.2023. He was also detained in Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru.
3. Subsequently, the detention order passed by the respondent No.4 also was confirmed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.05.2023. It is in this background, the file pertaining to the detenu was forwarded to the Advisory Board for consent on 08.05.2023. Posteriorly, Advisory Board was constituted on 01.06.2023 and the Advisory Board heard both detenu and also the respondent-Authorities who were present before the Advisory Board and vide order dated 02.06.2023 was pleased to uphold the order passed by the respondent No.4 and confirmation order passed by respondent No.2 supra.
4. Pursuant to confirmation order being passed by the Advisory Board, respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.06.2023, extended the detention period for one year starting from 27.04.2023 invoking section 13 of Goonda Act. Aggrieved by the orders supra, petitioner who is the father of the detenu herein is knocking the doors of this Court seeking for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
5. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondents are mandated to furnish the legible copies of the documents to the detenu, explaining the causes for his detention along with the documents that are relied upon to come to such conclusion, thereby enabling him to submit the representation as provided by Section 8 of the Goonda Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the respondent-Authorities failed to comply with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act supra, which took away the earliest possible opportunity for the detenu to file a representation against the order of detention.
6. The learned counsel would further submit that, though the orders annexed with documents were supplied to the accused, they were not in consonance with the Act and also the law laid down by this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, as the detenu was given the compilation of document which included the copies that were not legible. In support of his contention he persuades this Court to page 29, 35, 52, 150, 154, 155, 156, 157, 244, 246, 248 and 250 of the compilation of documents supplied to the detenu in pursuance to his arrest.
7. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would also further contend that, the documents supplied to the detenu was in English and Kannada versions and the detenu being the student of Urdu medium school who has studied till 2nd Standard, is stranger to read both Kannada and English languages. Such being the scenario, supplying the documents for him in Kannada and English languages is not only in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution but also in violation of Section 8 of the Goonda Act, thereby ceasing his right to file a representation against the order of Detention.
8. In addition to th
Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh Vs. B.K.Jha and Another
Ibrahim Ahmad Batti Vs. State of Gujarat and others AIR 1982 SC 1500
Iranna Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others
Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu Through Secretary to Government
S.M.D. Kiran Pasha Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Procedural requirements, including providing legible documents to the detenu and timely submission of materials to the Advisory Board, must be strictly complied with in preventive detention cases.
The court established that compliance with procedural requirements under the Goonda Act is mandatory for the validity of detention orders, and failure to provide necessary documentation and translati....
The failure to supply legible documents to a detenue violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, hindering effective representation and rendering the detention order illegal.
Detention orders must consider all relevant factors, including acquittals and language accessibility for the detainee's effective representation.
Non-supply of legible documents to the detune constitutes a violation of the right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Detention orders quashed due to procedural violations, particularly the failure to provide required documents, infringing the detenue's right to effective representation under Article 22(5).
Preventive detention must adhere to established legal guidelines ensuring clarity in communication and documentation to uphold individual rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the detenu's rights, including adequate notice for hearings, provision of necessary legal documents, and consideration ....
Preventive detention requires a showing of habitual offending; isolated acts may not meet the threshold for detainment under the Act without consistent evidence of antisocial behavior.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.