Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S. MUDAGAL, VENKATESH NAIK T
Vijay Kumar G., S/O. Gangulappa – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Police, Bengaluru – Respondent
ORDER :
VENKATESH NAIK T, J.
This writ petition habeas corpus is filed by the father of Detenue viz., Praveen Kumar V., seeking quashing of Annexure-A dated 19.05.2025 grounds of detention order passed by respondent No.1 under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) and Annexure-B the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 9 (f) of the Act.
2. The petitioner was/is charge sheeted, tried/being tried in all 3 cases for the offences punishable under NDPS Act, the particulars of which are as follows :
3. On 19.05.2025, the first respondent-Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru passed the impugned order directing the preventive detention of the Detenue. The impugned order came to be passed after seven months of the Detenue being enlarged on bail in the last crime registered against him. On 28.05.2025, the second respondent forwarded the detention order, grounds of detention and the documents relied upon for such detention to fourth respondent. Thereafter, the Detenue submitted a representation challenging his preventive detention under the Act. The said representation was forwarded
Detention orders must provide independent consideration of a detainee's representation and inform them of rights to challenge, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The violation of a detenue's rights under Article 22(5) leads to the quashing of detention orders when there is inordinate delay in considering representations.
The court affirmed that detention orders remain valid even if representations are considered after confirmation, provided they are independently reviewed by the government.
(1) Law of preventive detention must not only comply with Article 22 of Constitution, but also fulfill mandate of Articles 21 and 14.(2) Preventive detention – If consideration of representation made....
Point of law : words 'shall afford him the earliest opoortunity of making a representation against the order' in Article 22(5) of the Constitution suggest that the obligation of the Government is to ....
Preventive detention orders under the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act must comply with procedural requirements, including affording the detenu an opportunity for representation aft....
The court established that strict compliance with procedural requirements in preventive detention laws is essential to protect individual liberties, and any failure to do so renders the detention ord....
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
