A preventive detention order is not invalidated by minor procedural omissions or the non-supply of irrelevant documents (like case files in cases resulting in acquittal) provided the detaining authority reached a subjective satisfaction based on the detenue's habitual criminal history and the necessity to protect public order.

THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DECLARE THAT THE DETENTION ORDER NO.MAG/L&O/04/2025-26 DATED 26.09.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND GOVERNMENT SANCTION NO.HD 497 SST 2025 DATED 03.10.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND EXTENSION OF DETENTION ORDER NO.HD 497 SST 2025 DATED 11.11.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND THE DETENUE IS SET AT LIBERTY.

THIS WP(HC) HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

and

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

1. This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) is filed seeking to issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus and declare the Detention Order No.MAG/L&O/04/2025-26 dated 26.09.2025 passed by respondent No.3 and Government Sanction No.HD 497 SST 2025 dated 03.10.2025 passed by respondent No.1 and extension of Detention Order No.HD 497 SST 2025 dated 11.11.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 3 (1) and (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 ('1985 Act' for short) as illegal and void and the detenue be set at liberty.

2. We have heard Shri. Ranganath Reddy R, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Shri. B.A.Belliappa, learned State Public Prosecutor-1 along with Shri. P. Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner challenges the Order of Detention on five major grounds. They are as follows:-

"Ground No. 1

The respondent No.3 has relied upon the case registered in Cr No.121/2019 registered by V. Kota (U) P.S Chittoor District at Andhra Pradesh in the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention dated 26/9/2025 specifies that the detenue can read and write only in Kannada and English language. But in the list of documents supplied to the detenue, the third respondent has failed to give a translated copy of the complaint (Page No. 99 of the documents supplied to the detenue) which is in Telugu language in Cr No.121/2019 registered by V. Kota (U) P.S Chittor District since the said complaint relied upon by the third respondent are in Telugu language. The detenue could not make an effective representation since the documents supplied to him were not given to the detenue in the language understandable by the detenue.

The detaining authority has also not supplied the order sheets of the cases to ascertain the status in which the next hearing dates have been mentioned in the case in grounds of detention. Authority relied upon. W.P.H.C.No.75/2023 Mohammad Shafiulla vs. State of Karnataka Paragraph No.19

Ground No.2

The detaining authority has not mentioned the next date of hearing in the following cases:-

• In Cr No.70/2022 registered by Gulpet Police Station.

• Cr No.7/2023 registered by Oorgaum Police Station.

• Cr No.30/2023 registered by Marathahalli Police Station.

The detaining authority has mentioned the next date of hearing in the following cases which prior to the order of detention/post the date of detention order dated 26/9/2025:

• In Cr No.168/2021 registered by Chintamani Police Station (next hearing date 19/9/2025)

• In Cr No.188/202