(Prayer: This W.P.H.C. is filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, praying that to a writ in the Nature of Habeas Corpus by quashing of the order of detention dated 29.08.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 in No.MAG/300/2025-26, which is produced at Annexures-A and Annexure-A1.)

CAV Order

Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.

1. This petition is filed by the wife of the detenue seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the detention order dated 29.08.2025 passed in No.MAG- 300/2025-26 by the Respondent No. 2 and the confirmation order dated 10.10.2025 in H.D. 472 SST 2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 and to further writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to set the detenue at liberty by releasing him from prison.

2. 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 29.08.2025 under Section 2(g) of the 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 Act') for being a habitual offender and repeatedly undertaking activities punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and in order to prevent him from further engaging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said order was confirmed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 10.10.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order of detention and the consequent confirmation of the said order, this petition is filed by the wife of the detenue. 3. Sri. B.Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the facts and grounds of petition submits that various documents submitted to the detenue are illegible copies, which violate the right guaranteed to the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to give effective presentation. It is further submitted that the respondents, without considering the order of bail in Crime No.29/2025, which was passed prior to the detention order, have considered the detenue to be absconding, which amounts to consideration of irrelevant material. It is submitted that though he has raised other grounds in the writ petition to attack the order of detention, he restricts his submissions to the aforesaid ground. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition and set the detenue free.

          In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions;

          (1) Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v State of Maharashtra and Others (2012) 2 SCC 72

          (2) Sushanta Kumar Banik v State of Tripura and Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1333

          (3) Shankara Gouda v The State of Karnataka and Others 2015 SCC Online Kar 8200

          (4) Rizwan Sharif v The State of Karnataka and Others W.P.H.C.No.113/2015 dtd 07.11.2015

          (5) Rekha v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another (2011) 5 SCC 244

          (6) Joyi Kitty Joseph v Union of India and Others (2025) 4 SCC 476

          (7) Jayanarayan Sukul v State of West Bengal (1970) 1 SCC 219

          (8) Amreen v Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru and Others W.P.H.C.No.87/2025 dtd 23.10.2025

          (9) Bhupinder Singh v Union of India and Others (1987) 2 SCC 234

          (10) The State of Manipur and Others v Buyamayum Abdul Hanan and Another (2022) 19 SCC 509

          (11) M A Ellyas v State of Karnataka and Others W.P.H.C No.57/2014 dtd 14.08.2014

          (12) Makuko Chukwuka Muolokwo v State of Karnataka and Others 2020 SCC Online Kar 922

          (13) Karthik v Commissioner of Police and Others W.P.H.C.No.49/2021 dtd 20.09.2021

          (14) Jayamma v Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru 2019 SCC Online Kar 2965

          Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition by setting the detenue free.

4. Sri.B.A.Belliappa, learned SPP-I with Sri.Thejesh P, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State submits that the order of detention has been passed after following all procedural requirements and arriving at subjective satisfaction. It is submitted that the detenue has been a habitual offender with 14 cases registered against him under various provisions of IPC and BNS. It is further submitted that the detenue consistently engaged in the illegal activities and caused public disorder and to prevent the same, the said order of detention was passed. 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 considerations to the submissions advanced on both sides and material available on record, the point that arises for consideration in this petition is;

          "Whether the impugned order of detention dated 29.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2 and confirmation order are sustainable under law?"

6. To appreciate the case on hand, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Goonda Act and they are extracted as under for ready reference:

          "3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.- (1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any bootlegger or drug- offender or gambler or goonda or [Immoral Traffic Offender or Slum-Grabber or Video or Audio pirate] that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such persons be detained.

          (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the sub-section :

          Provided that the period specified in the order made by the State Government under this sub- section shall not, in the first instance, exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time.

          (3) When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government.

          8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order.-

          (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government.

          (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose.

          10. Reference to Advisory Board.-

          In every case where a detention order has been made under this Act the State Government shall within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under section 9, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made against the order, and in case where the order has been made by an officer, also the report by such officer under sub- section (3) of section 3.

          11. Procedure of Advisory Board.-

          (1) The Advisory Board shall after considering the materials placed before it and, after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the State Government or from any person called for the purpose through the State Government or from the person concerned, and if, in any particular case, the Advisory Board considers it essential so to do or if the person concerned desire to be heard, after hearing him in person, submit its report to the State Government, within seven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned.

          (2) The report of the Advisory Board shall specify in a separate part thereof the opinion of the Advisory Board as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned.

          (3) When there is a difference of opinion among the members forming the Advisory Board, the opinion of the majority of such members shall be deemed to be the opinion of the Board.

          (4) The proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report, excepting that part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall be confidential.

          (5) Nothing in this section shall entitle any person against whom a detention order has been made to appear by any legal practitioner in any matter connected with the reference to the Advisory Board.

          13. Maximum period of detention.-

          The maximum period for which any person may be detained, in pursuance of any detention order made under this Act which has been confirmed under section 12 shall be twelve months from the date of detention."

7. The bare perusal of the aforesaid Sections indicates that the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any "Goonda" as defined under Section 2(g) of the Goonda Act, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, pass an order directing such a person to be detained. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Goonda Act empowers the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police to exercise the powers conferred under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Goonda Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Goonda Act mandates that if the order is passed by the Officer under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Goonda Act, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government along with the grounds on which the order has been made. The order made by the Officer under sub- Section (2) shall remain in force for 12 days unless in the meantime, the State Government approves it. Section 8 of the Goonda Act mandates that the grounds of detention are required to be served on the detenue within 5 days from the date of detention and shall offer him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government. Section 10 of the Goonda Act mandates that the order of detention made under the Goonda Act shall be placed before the Advisory Board within a period of 3 weeks from the date of detention order by the State Government along with grounds on which the order has been made and representation, if any, made against the order. Section 11 of the Goonda Act provides the procedure to be followed by the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board is empowered to consider providing personal hearing to the detenue and thereafter submit report to the State Government within 7 weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. The Advisory Board is required to forward its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned. The opinion of the Advisory Board is confidential. Section 13 of the Goonda Act indicates that the maximum period for detention is 12 months from the date of detention.

8. The impugned detention order dated 29.08.2025 is passed by respondent No.2 by recording the reason that the detenue is aged about 42 years and a resident of Samudravalli Village of Shanthigrama, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District and he has been involved in criminal cases including murder, attempt to murder, assault and has created fear in the minds of the people. To arrive at such a conclusion, the authority placed reliance on the following cases;

          (a) Crime No.322/2010 registered by Hassan Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

          (b) Crime No.26/2011 registered by Hassan Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC

          (c) Crime No.236/2012 registered by Hassan Extension Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

          (d) Crime No.02/2014 registered by Hassan Extension Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143,147,148,504,324,323,149 of IPC.

          (e) Crime No.13/2014 registered by Hassan Extension Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143,147,148,504,323,427,149 of IPC.

          (f) Crime No.258/2025 registered by Hassan Extension Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143,147,148,341, 504,307,149 of IPC.

          (g) Crime No.274/2015 registered by Hassan Extension Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143,144,147,148,302,307,149 of IPC.

          (h) Crime No. 124/2016 registered by Hassan Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143,147,148,307,302,149 of IPC.

          (i) Crime No.336/2018 registered by Hassan Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143,147,148,324,307,149 of IPC.

          (j) Crime No.180/2021 registered by Hassan Extension Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143,144,364,324,307,149 of IPC.

          (k) Crime No.70/2022 registered by Hassan Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143,341,504,506,149 of IPC.

          (l) Crime No.116/2022 registered by Hassan Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 363,364,302,201,114,120b,34 of IPC.

          (m) Crime No.142/2023 registered by Hassan Extension Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 363,307,384,342,324,504,506,34 of IPC.

          (n) Crime No.29/2025 registered by Hassan Extension Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 352,132 of BNS Act.

9. The aforesaid crimes were registered against the detenue and others from 2010 to 2025. The last crime registered against the detenue is in Crime No. 29/2025 on 01.02.2025.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the authorities have failed to furnish the documents to the detenue in a legible format, which has deprived him of the ability to give effective representation to the authorities. The representation of the detenue to the respondent-State against the order of detention clearly states that several documents submitted to the detenue were illegible. It is also noticed that the detenue in his representations submitted to the authority has clearly referred to those documents, which were illegible. The respondent-State failed to substantiate the said contentions by rebutting the same in their statement of objections or by placing material to that affect. The said documents were placed before us, it can be clearly seen that the said documents are illegible. Therefore, the submitting of illegible copies affects the right of the detenue to give effective representation, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

11. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harikisan Vs. State of Maharashtra 1962 SCC Online 117

          8. We do not agree with the High Court in its conclusion that in every case communication of the grounds of detention in English, so long as it continues to be the official language of the State, is enough compliance with the requirements of the Constitution. If the detained person is conversant with the English language, he will naturally be in a position to understand the gravamen of the charge against him and the facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is based. But to a person who is not so conversant with the English language, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, the detenue must be given the grounds in a language which he can understand, and in a script which he can read, if he is a literate person.

          9. The Constitution has guaranteed freedom of movement throughout the territory of India and has laid down detailed rules as to arrest and detention. It has also, by way of limitations upon the freedom of personal liberty, recognised the right of the State to legislate for preventive detention, subject to certain safeguards in favour of the detained person, as laid down in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22. One of those safeguards is that the detained person has the right to be communicated the grounds on which the order of detention has been made against him, in order that he may be able to make his representation against the order of detention. In our opinion, in the circumstances of this case, it has not been shown that the appellant had the opportunity, which the law contemplates in his favour, of making an effective representation against his detention. On this ground alone we declare his detention illegal, and set aside the Order of the High Court and the Order of Detention passed against him.

12. It would also be useful refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Manipur and Others referred supra, the paragraph No.22 and 23 are extracted below for reference:

          "20. What will be the effect of non-supply of legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority has been considered by this Court in Bhupinder Singh [Bhupinder Singh v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 234 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 328] as under : (SCC pp. 234-35, para 1)

          "1. On 3-10-1985 the officers of the Enforcement Directorate searched House No. B.20, Gujranwala Town, Part II, Delhi and recovered certain quantity of foreign exchange. It appears that the petitioner was not immediately available. He was called and interrogated. He made a statement which was recorded by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate. On 19-3-1986 an order for detention of the petitioner was made by Shri M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. The petitioner was arrested on 16-4-1986 and served with a copy of the order of detention. Grounds of detention were served on him four days later. On 12-5-1986 he was produced before the Advisory Board. He made a complaint before the Advisory Board that the copies of documents which were supplied to him alongwith the grounds of detention were not legible and he also placed before the Advisory Board a copy of a representation said to have been made by him for supply of legible copies of documents. There is a controversy whether this representation was made on 8-5-1986 or 12-5-1986. From the original files produced before us we find that the representation was typed on 8-5-1986, but actually signed by the detenu on 12-5-1986. But that would not make any difference for the purposes of this case. On 19-5-1986 the Under-Secretary to the Government of India conceded the demand of the detenu for legible copies of documents and directed the Directorate of Enforcement to supply a duplicate set of documents to the petitioner. A copy of this letter was also sent to the detenu and was acknowledged by him on 21-5-1986. There is a controversy as regards the date on which the legible copies of documents were actually given to the detenu. According to the detenu they were served on him on 1-7-1986, whereas according to the counter- affidavit of Shri S.K. Chowdhry, Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, the documents were supplied on 21-6-1986. It does not make any difference whether the documents were supplied on 21-6-1986 or on 1-7-1986 since we find that even before legible copies of documents were supplied to the detenu, the detention order was confirmed on 14-6-1986. The detenu was thus clearly denied the opportunity of making a representation and there was therefore a clear contravention of the right guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. The detenu is entitled to be set at liberty. We are told that the detenu is now on parole. He need not surrender." and later in Manjit Singh Grewal [Manjit Singh Grewal v. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 59 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 608 (2)] as under : (SCC p. 59, para 3)

          "3. It appears that the appellant had asked for certain copies of the documents which admittedly were there with the respondent--Union of India. Copies of the documents were supplied, but the same were not legible. This position is also apparent. It is not necessary in the facts of this case to go into the question whether these documents were relevant or material."

          21. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari [Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari, (2008) 17 SCC 348 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 543] wherein it was held in paras 27 and 31 as under : (SCC pp. 355-56)

          "27. It has also been the consistent view that when a detention order is passed all the material relied upon by the detaining authority in making such an order, must be supplied to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation against the detention order in compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution, irrespective of whether he had knowledge of the same or not. These have been recognised by this Court as the minimum safeguards to ensure that preventive detention laws, which are an evil necessity, do not become instruments of oppression in the hands of the authorities concerned or to avoid criminal proceedings which would entail a proper investigation.

          28-30.***

          31. Of course, in Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran case [Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran v. State of T.N., (2000) 9 SCC 170 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1198] it was also made clear that there is no legal requirement that a copy of every document mentioned in the order has to be supplied to the detenu. What is, therefore, imperative is that copies of such documents which had been relied upon by the detaining authority for reaching the satisfaction that in the interest of the State and its citizens the preventive detention of the detenu is necessary, have to be supplied to him. Furthermore, if in this case, the detenu's representation and writ petition had been placed before the detaining authority, which according to the detenu contained his entire defence to the allegations made against him, the same may have weighed with the detaining authority as to the necessity of issuing the order of detention at all."

          22. Thus, the legal position has been settled by this Court that the right to make representation is a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by the detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making an effective representation and denial thereof will hold the order of detention illegal and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law.

          23. It is the admitted case of the parties that Respondent 1 has failed to question before the detaining authority that illegible or blurred copies were supplied to him which were relied upon while passing the order of detention, but the right to make representation being a fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution in order to make effective representation, the detenu is always entitled to be supplied with the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority and such information made in the grounds of detention enables him to make an effective representation."

13. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that supply of illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by the detaining authority deprives the detenue from making an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and denial of which is result in violation of the procedure contemplated under the law for passing an order of preventive detention.

14. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in Crime No.29/2025, the Court has passed an order of bail on 08.07.2025. The said order of bail has been passed before the order of detention on 29.08.2025. However, the respondents in the grounds of detention has not considered the said order of bail and have considered the detenue to be absconding, which is factually incorrect and the same amounts to non- consideration of relevant material as well as consideration of irrelevant material, while arriving at the subjective satisfaction by the authority.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMEENA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA & OTHERS (2023) 9 SCC 587 has held in paragraph No.28 as under:

          "28. In the circumstances of a given case, a constitutional court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine whether:

          28.1. The order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied;

          28.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute;

          28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires;

          28.4. The detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body;

          28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self- created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorised by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case;

          28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate;

          28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale;

          28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject- matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached;

          28.9. The grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and

          28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to."

16. It would also be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite referred supra, wherein it was the relevant paragraphs are extracted below for reference:

          "9. In a case where the detenu is released on bail and is enjoying his freedom under the order of the court at the time of passing the order of detention, then such order of bail, in our opinion, must be placed before the detaining authority to enable him to reach at the proper satisfaction.

          10. In the present case, since the order of bail dated 15-8-2010 was neither placed before the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of detention nor the detaining authority was aware of the order of bail, in our view, the detention order is rendered invalid. We cannot attempt to assess in what manner and to what extent consideration of the order granting bail to the detenu would have effected the satisfaction of the detaining authority but suffice it to say that non-placing and non-consideration of the material as vital as the bail order has vitiated the subjective decision of the detaining authority."

17. It is clear from the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is without giving due consideration to the relevant material such as order of bail in a pending case as well as consideration of an incorrect fact that the detenue is absconding, when the bail was already granted. Such non-consideration of relevant material amounts to violation of procedural safeguards, non-application of mind and arriving at subjective satisfaction by ignoring relevant material. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the order of bail in Crime No.29/2025 had been passed by the Court before the passing of the order of detention, but the same was not placed before the detaining authority for arriving at its subjective satisfaction. We are also of the considered view that the order of bail in Crime No.29/2025 was passed after a period of 5 months and nothing had prevented the authorities from detaining him in the said Crime, before resorting to passing an order of preventive detention. Hence, we are of the view of that the order of detention and the consequent order of confirmation suffers from non-consideration of relevant material and consideration of factually incorrect material.

18. Though the petitioner has raised other grounds in the petition to attack the order of detention, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders of detention are required to be interfered on grounds referred supra. Hence, we need not consider the other contentions and grounds urged in the petition. Having held that the detention order under challenge is contrary to law and requires interference, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of detention is passed in violation of the fundamental rights of the detenue guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

          i. The writ petition is allowed.

          ii. The impugned order of detention dated 29.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2, the confirmation order dated 10.10.2025 passed by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed.

          iii. The respondents are directed to set the detenue at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other cases.

          iv. Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of the order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kalaburagi forthwith for compliance.

          v. No order as to costs.