Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, Ramachandra D. Huddar, JJ.
Smt. Sangeeta Sunkrol, W/O Satish Sunkrol - Petitioner
Versus
The Addl. District Magistrate And Police Commissioner Kalaburagi City - Respondents
Writ Petition Habeas Corpus No. 200006/2024
Decided On : 16-10-2024
Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 - Sections 2(g), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 12 - Preventive detention - Detention order challenged on grounds of being illegal and void due to lack of live link between past conduct and necessity for detention - Court emphasized that stale incidents cannot justify preventive detention and that the detaining authority must demonstrate a proximate link between past conduct and the need for detention. (Paras 14, 17, 27, 39)
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed by the wife of the detenu challenging the detention order dated 29.05.2024, which labeled the detenu as a 'Goonda' based on past criminal activities. The court found that there was a significant gap in criminal activity, undermining the justification for preventive detention.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the detention order was based on stale incidents and lacked a live link to justify the preventive detention, thus rendering it illegal.
Issues: The main issues included whether the detention order was justified based on the detenu's past conduct and the necessity of maintaining public order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that preventive detention must be based on a reasonable prognosis of future behavior linked to past conduct, and that vague or stale grounds cannot support such orders.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the detention order was set aside. Parties involved: Petitioner (wife of the detenu) and Respondent (State).
ORDER :
S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.
The petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu seeking for a declaration that detention of Satish Sunkrol @ Market Satya by order dated 29.05.2024 bearing No.01/Goonda/MAG-2/KC/2024 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissioner, Kalaburagi City under Section 3(1) & (2) 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 to as 'the Act'] as being illegal and void. The petitioner has also challenged the Order of Approval dated 05.06.2024 bearing Reference No.HD 233 SST 2024 passed under Section 3(3) of the Act as well as the Confirmation Order dated 15.07.2024 bearing Reference No. HD 233 SST 2024 passed under Section 12 of the Act as being illegal.
2. The timeline of the orders passed, drawn from the synopsis of the petitioner is self-explanatory and the same is reproduced as hereunder:
| Sl. No. | Description/Events | Particulars/Date |
| 1. | Writ Petition preferred by | Smt. Sangeeta Sunkrol |
| 2. | Relationship with detenu | Wife |
| 3. | Detenu’s Name | Sri Satish @ Market Satya S/o. Venkatswami Reddy |
| 4. | Order of Detention | 29.05.2024 |
| 5. | Arrest of Detenu | 30.05.2024 |
| 6. | The State approved the detention | 05.06.2024 |
| 7. | The State confirmed and extended the detention for a period of one year | 15.07.2024 |
3. The detention order dated 29.05.2024 is passed by the respondent No.1-Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissioner, Kalaburagi City and is enclosed at Annexure-'A'. The said order narrates that the detune is a ‘Goonda’ as defined under Section 2 of the Act and was a “professional criminal habituated to commit offence against persons and property punishable under Chapters VIII, XVI, XVII and XXII of IPC” and has been passed with a view to “curb his anti-social activities, causing breach of peace and tranquility…”.
4. The satisfaction of respondent No.1 that the detenu is “most likely to act prejudicially to the interest of public and indulge in criminal activities, thorough overt and covert means, in case of release from custody”. The order is passed by invoking Section 3(1) & (2) of the Act.
5. The grounds for the order for detention have been passed on 29.05.2024 making out a case as follows:-
ii) Involved in overt and covert offences;
iii) Assaulting public with dangerous weapons, attempting to murder, abusing in filthy language, picking quarrels, forming unlawful assembly.
iv)Assaulting in public places, disturbing public peace and tranquility.
v) Threatening complainant and witnesses for life, assaulting those who deposed against the Detenu in Court, rioting, etc.
6. The grounds further detail offences under various statutory provisions including under IPC, SC/ST Act, Indian Arms Act.
7. The chronology of the occurrence of offences since the year 2009 have been detailed as hereunder:
| S.No. | Police Station | Date of Report | Cr. No.& Section of Law | Present status of the case |
| 1 | R.G. Nagar PS, Kalaburagi City | 01-10-2009 | 93/2009 U/Sec.147, 148, 448, 504, 324, 307 R/w 149 IPC. | Prl. Session's Judge Kalaburagi in SC No.232/2014, after trial, acquitted on 30-09-2019. |
| 2 | Chowk PS, Kalaburagi City | 12-02-2010 | 36/2010 U/Sec.341, 504, 506 R/w 34 IPC | III Addl. JMFC Kalaburagi in CC No.2614/2011 after trial, acquitted on 01-01-2019 |
| 3. | Chowk PS, Kalaburagi City | 14-06-2011 | 128/2011 U/Sec.323, 324, 504, 506, 307 IPC & 3(1) (11) SC/ST PA Act. | II Addl. Session's Judge Kalaburagi in SC No.456/2011 after trial, acquitt |
Preventive detention requires a live link between past conduct and the necessity for detention; stale incidents cannot justify such orders.
Preventive detention must link past conduct to an imminent threat; reliance on outdated or incorrect data violates legal principles.
(1) Preventive detention – Power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention – It is not a parallel proceeding.(2) Inability on part of State’s police machinery to tack....
Preventive detention orders must follow statutory compliance and aim to prevent future offenses, not punish past actions.
(1) Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects ‘law and order’ but before it can be said to affect ‘public order’, it must affect the commun....
If the detaining authority apprehends that since the detenu was released on bail, there would be imminent possibility of his committing similar offences, nothing prevented the detaining authority in ....
(1) Preventive Detention - Recourse to preventive detention can be taken by executive merely on suspicion and as a precaution to prevent activities by person, sought to be detained, prejudicial to ce....
Point of Law : Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Telangana Act 1 of 1986, reads as "Goonda" means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts t....
(1) Preventive detention – Powers to be exercised under Preventive Detention Law are exceptional powers which have been given to Government for its exercise in an exceptional situation as it strikes ....
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
