An order of preventive detention remains valid where the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction is based on a pattern of habitual criminal conduct and objective evidence of threats to public order, regardless of minor clerical inaccuracies or the pending status of ordinary criminal trials.

THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DECLARE THAT THE DETENTION ORDER NO.MAG (2)/CR/L AND O/02/2025-26 DATED 02.07.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THIRD RESPONDENT AND GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.HD 325 SST 2025 DATED 10.07.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY FIRST RESPONDENT AND GOVERNMENT EXTENSION OF DETENTION ORDER NO.HD 325 SST 2025 DATED 16.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY SECOND RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND THE SET THE DETENUE 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)

This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) is filed praying to declare the Detention Order No.MAG(2)/CR/L and O/02/2025-26 dated 02.07.2025 passed by respondent No.3 and Government Order No.HD 325 SST 2025 dated 10.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1 and Government Extension of Detention Order No.HD 325 SST 2025 dated 16.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2, under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video and Audio Pirates) Act, 1985, ('1985 Act' for short) as illegal and void and direct that the detenue be set at liberty.

2. We have heard Shri. Ranganath Reddy R, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and 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 detention order has been passed without considering the lack of proximity, there being a gap of six months from the date of registration of the last crime. The last crime registered against the detenue is dated 18.11.2024, whereas the detention order has been passed on 02.07.2025.

Authority Relied Upon:

WP (H.C.) No. 111/2024, Sivakumar vs State of Karnataka & Others, Page No.20, Paragraph No.23.

Ground No. 2

The State has not sought cancellation of bail even if the detenue had allegedly violated any bail conditions. Further, the detaining authority has not specified which bail conditions were violated by the detenue in the detention order. Hence subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority suffers from complete non-application of mind.

Authorities Relied Upon:

W.P. (H.C.) No. 4/2025, Anil Reddy vs State of Karnataka, dated 28.02.2025 Page Nos.30 to 38, Paragraph Nos.15 to 17.

Ground No. 3

The activities of the detenue are not prejudicial to public order, as they do not affect the community or the public at large. Mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not a sufficient ground for preventive detention.

Authority Relied Upon:

• ANU @ Aniket vs Union of India, in Criminal Appeal No.2920/2025, dated 27.05.2025, Page No.18, Paragraph No.30.

• Criminal Appeal No. 18223/2025, Roshini Devi vs State of Telangana, dated 08.01.2026, Paragraph Nos. 8 and 10.

Ground No. 4

The detaining authority has failed to inform the time period available to the detenue to make a representation to the Government, though Section 3(3) of the Act mandates that the detention order must be approved by the Government within 12 days. The detent