IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU W.P.H.C NO.6 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

DIL SHAD W/O HUSEEN KABEER, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT-D NO.1-187(6), NEAR PEJAVARA CHURCH, KALVAR, KALAVARA, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 142.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESHKUMAR RAO K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, Digitally signed by VIDHANA SOUDHA, SUMATHY KANNAN BANGALORE - 560 001 Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI – 576 101

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI – 576 101

4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI – 576 101

5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARKALA TOWN POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 104

6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL, CENTRAL PRISON, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU – 570 022 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B A BELLIAPPA., SPP-I A/W SRI. P. THEJESH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS BY QUASHING OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION DATED 10.07.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.MAG(2)-CR-414/2025/E-214858 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & B, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN &

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)

1. The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order of detention passed by the Respondent No.2/the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Udupi District, Udupi on 10.07.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Detention Order’) and a Confirmation Order passed by Respondent No.1/the State of Karnataka on

17.07.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Confirmation Order”). A prayer has also been made directing the release of the Detenue.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a Detention Order was passed under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offences and Slum-Grabbers Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1985 Act’) by the Respondent No.2/Magistrate on 10.07.2025, after recording subjective satisfaction that the activities of the Detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The Detention Order was approved by the respondent No.1/State, who issued a confirmation order on 17.07.2025. The petition has been filed by the wife of the Detenue, since the Detenue is in custody.

2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the Detention Order is completely vague and does not set out any specific provision under which the Detention Order has been passed in terms of the 1985 Act. It merely references Section 3(1) of the 1985 Act without setting out the type of offence under Section 2 of the 1985 Act.

2.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Detention Order must not only be clear and specific and refer to the provisions of the 1985 Act that attracted, and it must also set out the satisfaction that the Retaining Authority has obtained. However, both are missing from the Detention Order.

2.3 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the grounds of detention clearly show that of the 17 cases that have been stated to be registered against the Detenue, however, the petitioner was acquitted in most of those cases, and was only convicted in one case. The Detention Order however does not reference that fact at all. He seeks to rely upon the judgment of a Co-Ordinate Bench passed in Prema vs. State of Karnataka &

Others, W.P.(HC) No.80/2014, dtd.07.07.2014, in this behalf.

2.4 Lastly, it is contended that no opportunity was given to the detenu for making a representation against the

Detention Order and that this lapse would by itself vitiate the Detention Order. The learned counsel for the petit