Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18195
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anu Sivaraman, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ
Nandini V – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.132 OF 2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Preventive Detention
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Preventive detention - Representation - Right of detenue to make representation to detaining authority - Absence of time limit in order - Not fatal to detention order - Constitutional mandate to consider representation expeditiously without hard and fast time frame.
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged a preventive detention order passed against her husband, a habitual offender involved in multiple criminal cases ranging from dacoity to murder. Grounds for challenge included failure to supply translated documents, non-mention of case hearing dates, lack of proximity, and failure to inform the time limit for making representations.
Findings of Court:
Court found that the contentious translated documents were irrelevant as they pertained to an acquitted case not relied upon for current detention. Minor administrative omissions like non-mention of next hearing dates did not invalidate the order or prove non-application of mind. The detention was found to be based on persistent criminal activity affecting public order.
Issues: Whether the preventive detention order is vitiated by procedural lapses, failure to supply translated documents, or lack of information regarding representation time limits.
Ratio Decidendi: Non-supply of documents that are not relied upon for the satisfaction of the detaining authority does not invalidate a detention order. Administrative lapses like omission of hearing dates or lack of specific time limits in the detention order do not override the substantive necessity for detention when the individual is a habitual offender whose activities disturb public order.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ranganath Reddy R
For the Respondents: B.A. Belliappa, P. Thejesh
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for challenging preventive detention orders (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. state submission on habitual criminality and procedural compliance (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. validity of detention order despite document translation or legibility issues (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. procedural timing for representation and constitutional rights of detenues (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
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
