Detention orders must consider all relevant factors, including acquittals and language accessibility for the detainee's effective representation.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This petition is filed by the mother of the detenue seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus quashing the detention order dated 31.01.2025 passed in No.MAG- 1/01/G.A/MGC/2025 by the respondent No.3, the confirmation order dated 06.02.2025 in GO No.HD 56 SST 2025 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order dated 05.08.2025 passed in No.M.A.G.1/GA/M/N/2025 passed by the respondent No.3 detaining the detenue in Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Benagluru, for a period of one year beginning from 31.01.2025 under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Trafficking Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Goonda Act').

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the detenue has been detained pursuant to the order of detention passed by the respondent No.3 against the detenue on 31.01.2025 under Section 2(g) of the Act for being a habitual offender and repeatedly undertaking activities punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS Act') and in order to prevent him from further engaging himself in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said order was confirmed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.02.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order of detention and the consequent confirmation of the said order, this petition is filed by the mother of the detenue.

3. Sri.Suyog Herele E, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the facts and grounds of the petition submits that in total, 13 cases have been filed against the detenue, out of which, 8 cases have ended in acquittal. However, the Detaining Authority has not considered the said aspect before recording its subjective satisfaction. It is further submitted that the respondent- Authorities have given several documents in English, without a translation in Kannada and few of the documents are totally illegible, due to which the detenue has been devoid of being able to give an effective representation which violates the right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions:

(1) NENAVATH BUJJI ETC. Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS , AIR 2024 SC 1610 .

(2) BANKA SNEHA SHEELA Vs STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS , (2021) 9 SCC 415 .

(3) MOHAMMAD SHAFIULLA Vs THE D.G AND I.G.P OF POLICE AND OTHERS ., W.P.H.C. No.75/2023 dtd 07.12.2023.

Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition by setting the detenue free.

4. Sri.Thejesh P., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the order of detention has been passed after following all procedural requirements and arriving at a subjective satisfaction. It is submitted that the detenue has been a habitual offender with 13 cases registered against him under various provisions of the IPC and the BNS Act. It is further submitted that due to the consistent illegal activities of the detenue causing public disorder, the order of detention was passed against the detenue to prevent the same. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sid