Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41928
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN, MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA, JJ
SMT. SHAHINA @ SHAHEEN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WPHC 100 / 2024
SRI. V.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHIJITH K.S., ADVOCATE; SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP A/W SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP
Preventive detention orders must comply with procedural safeguards and be proportionate to the alleged offences; failure to apply due consideration renders such orders invalid.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Preventive Detention - Detention order under the Goonda Act challenged - Grounds of detention cited illegal gambling activities and public nuisance - Court found non-compliance with procedural safeguards and disproportionate detention period - Detention order set aside. (Paras 1, 24, 25)
(B) Preventive Detention - The court emphasized the necessity for the detaining authority to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances before passing a detention order, ensuring that such orders are not made arbitrarily or without due consideration. (Paras 20, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the detention of her husband under the Goonda Act, citing procedural violations and disproportionate detention for minor offences. The Commissioner of Police had issued the detention order based on multiple gambling-related convictions.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the detention order was not justified given the nature of the offences and the lack of habitual criminality, indicating a failure of the authorities to apply their minds appropriately.
Issues: The main issues included whether the detention order was legally justified and whether the authorities complied with procedural requirements under the Goonda Act and the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the detention order was set aside due to procedural lapses and the disproportionate nature of the detention in relation to the alleged offences, emphasizing the need for careful consideration by the detaining authority.
Result: The Writ Petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. brief facts of the case (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. main contentions of the petitioner (Para 8) |
| 3. arguments by the state public prosecutor (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's reasoning on detention order (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. final ruling of the court (Para 25) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs: (a) A writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or writ or order or direction of appropriate nature and quash the order of extension of detention order at Annexure-C, dated 07.10.2024, passed by the Respondent No.1 vide reference No.HD 417 SST 2024 against Syed Nawab @ Nawab as illegal which is issued in furtherance of the detention order passed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
by the respondent
No.2 bearing reference
No.04/CRM(4)/DTS/2024, dated 21.08.2024 and approval order bearing reference No.HD 417 SST 2024, Bangalore dated 27.08.2024 at Annexure-A. WPHC No. 100 of 2024 (b) A writ or direction directing the respondent
No.3 to release the detenue, the husband of the petitioner forthwith, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Commissioner of Police passed the detention order dated 21.08.2024 under Section 3 of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (for short, `Goonda Act') to detain Syed Nawab @ Nawab, S/o Syed Pyarusab (for short, `detenue'), who is the husband of the petitioner herein.
3. The grounds mentioned in the detention order dated 21.08.2024 reveals that detenue had indulged himself in illegal gambling activities and exploited general public, for which seven criminal cases were registered against him and out of them, in three cases, he was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 78 of the Karnatka Police Act, 1963 (for short, `K.P.Act'). The WPHC No. 100 of 2024 detenue had violated the bail conditions imposed by the Court in the said cases and continued to indulge in gambling activities in and around Bengaluru. It is also alleged that due to the said illegal gambling activities, innocent people of the society participated in the gambling and have lost their money and properties and their families were put into jeopardy. He had spoiled the public order and exploited innocent people of the society. He could not correct himself even after registration of seven cases against him. Therefore, his activities caused danger to the public peace and harmony and law and order situation. With these reasons, the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, passed detention orders under the Goonda Act.
4. The Commissioner of Police submitted the said detention order to the Government of Karnataka. The Government of Karnataka by its order dated 21.08.2024, initially approved the said detention order.
The Government secured report from the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Goonda Act and WPHC No. 100 of 2024 thereafter, passed the order dated 07.10.2024 to detain the detenue for a period of one year from 21.08.2024.
5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, filed statement of objections along with calendar of events. It is stated that copies of orders passed by the Commissioner of Police as well as Government of Karnataka were supplied to him.
6. The detenue made representation dated 29.08.2024 to the Commissioner of Police as well as to the Government. The Government issued an endorsement dated 31.08.2024, informing him that his representation was rejected. Even the Commissioner of Police also issued an endorsement dated 04.09.2024, rejecting his representation.
7. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
8. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitio
