Preventive detention must link past conduct to an imminent threat; reliance on outdated or incorrect data violates legal principles.

CAV ORDER

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

This petition is filed by the brother of the detenue seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the detention order dated 30.08.2025 passed in No.MAG(2)CR/L&O/03/2025-26 by the Respondent No.2, Order of Approval No.HD 474 SST 2025 dated 04.09.2025 and the Order of Confirmation No.HD 474 SST 2025 dated 09.10.2025 by the Respondent No.1 detaining the detenue in Central Prison, Mysuru, under the provisions of 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.2 against the detenue on 30.08.2025 under Section 2(g) of the Goonda Act for being a habitual offender and repeatedly undertaking activities punishable under the various the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arms Act') and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act') and in order to prevent him from further engaging in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The order of detention was approved vide order dated 04.09.2025 and confirmed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 09.10.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order of detention, order of approval and the consequent confirmation of the said order, this petition is filed by the brother of the detenue.

3. Sri.Ranganath Reddy R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the detention order has been passed in violation of law and suffers from the procedural irregularities. It is submitted that there is no live and proximate link between the past actions of the detenue and the passing of the order of detention. It is further submitted that in Crime No.75/2021 relied on in the detention order, it is shown that the bail is granted by the 'Hon'ble Karnataka High Court (Criminal Appeal No.1435/2021)', however, the said case is totally incorrect and does not involve the detenue. It is also submitted that the activities undertaken by the detenue do not cause any public disorder and the respondent-State ought to have resorted to the remedies available under ordinary criminal law, instead of resorting to passing an order of preventive detention, which is impermissible as per law. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting the detenue free.

4. The learned State Public Prosecutor-I 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, despite being under trial in various offences and being out on bail, has continued his illegal activities causing disturbance to the public order due to which, he is required to be detained under the order of preventive detention. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned SPP-I 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 sides and the material available on record.

6. The point that arises for consideration in this pe