Smt. Lalita vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner-Smt. Lalita who is the wife of detenue Sri Suresh @ Sagar Rathod, to quash the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 21.05.2026 vide Annexure-F.

The brief facts leading rise to filing of the present writ petition are as follows:

It is the case of the petitioner that Suresh Kumar Rathod was taken into custody by detention order dated 11.04.2026. The said detention order is called in question on various grounds before this Court. Though a number of grounds have been taken, but the grounds urged before this Court by the petitioners are that the sponsoring authority has withheld the several information of the detenue and other relevant documents which could have weighed in the mind of the detenue authority while passing the impugned orders. It is also relevant to submit that the sponsoring authority has not furnished the bail orders, wherein the detention was enlarged on bail in the cases registered against him resulting in suppression of relevant material facts. On account of non-furnishing of bail orders in the proposal submitted by the sponsoring authority before the detention authority has vitiated the order of detention in as much as the same were not part of the proposal and that the detention authority was impaired due to their absence and consequently resulting in passing of order without application of mind. The above materials have been withheld willfully in order to mislead the detaining authority. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 completely lacks application of mind. Respondent No.2 has not raised any points for consideration, has not assigned any reasons much less valid reasons while passing the impugned order. The detention authority has merely referred to the number of cases pending against the detention and without arriving at a subjective satisfaction whether they could form the basis of passing order of detention has mechanically passed the order which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The respondents have committed a grave error in law in taking into consideration old cases which ended in the acquittal while passing order of preventive detention. It is contended that the impugned order of detention is in violation of Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of the Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video and Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act of 1985’). Respondent No.2 has not specified the period/duration of the order of detention which is against the spirit of Section 3 of the Act of 1985. It is contended that the impugned order of preventive detention is totally in violation of the provisions of the Act. As per Section 10 of the Act of 1985, respondent No.1 has to place the grounds of detention order, representation if any and the report of the officer under Section 3(3) of the Act of 1985 before the Advisory Board within three weeks. Respondent No.1 has not followed the said procedure. Hence, on these grounds, the order of detention is violated by serious incurable defects and same is liable to be quashed.

The State has filed the statement of objections contending that the invocation of the provisions of the Karnataka Goonda Act is made after reasonable assessment of the criminal background of the detenue Suresh. The detenue has involved in 14 cases and is indulged in supply and smuggling of illegal arms like Country made pistols and Bullets. Apart from such criminal activities has along with his gang has created an atmosphere of fear and terror in the public at large and often has resorted to extorting money from the public and his movements are detrimental to the wellbeing of the society. A rowdy sheet was also opened against him, as per the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura on 23.04.2025 at Vijayapura Rural Police Station, and the sponsoring authority has given sound reasoning while passing an order of detention and same was approved by the Government and the Advisory Board. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the respondent No.2 as well as confirmed by the Government are illegal and they are contrary to the provisions of the Goondas Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’). In terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 8 of the Act of 1923, it is mandatory to furnish the detenue not only the order of detention but also the grounds of detention and the supporting documents relied upon by the detaining authority. Further, the Government cannot detain a person under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 for an indefinite period, as such detention is contrary to Section 3 of the Act of 1923. The Government did not placed the material before the advisory board within three weeks and copies of the relevant documents were not supplied to the detenue. Therefore, he was unable to make a representation before the competent authority. He also submitted that the mere fact that criminal cases are pending against the detenue is not a ground for passing an order preventive detention. Some cases are pending for trial, while others are pending for investigation. Hence, the detention order passed by the Government is illegal and to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of S^RI S^ANGAMESH S/^O G^URUPAD M^UDANGI V^S. ^THE S^{TATE OF} K^{ARNATAKA AND OTHERS IN} W.P.N^O.202165/2026, in the case of J^ASEELA S^HAJI V^S. U^{NION OF} I^{NDIA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN} AIR 2024 SC 4721, in the case of S^MT. I^CCHU D^EVI C^HORARIA V^S. U^{NION OF} I^{NDIA AND OTHERS} reported in 1981 SCC (C^RI.) 25, in the case of A^MEENA B^EGUM V^S. S^{TATE OF} T^{ELANGANA AND OTHERS} reported in AIR 2023 SC 4273, in the case of R^EKHA V^S. S^{TATE OF} T^AMIL N^ADU reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244, R^OSHINI D^EVI V^S. S^{TATE OF} T^{ELANGANA AND OTHERS} reported in AIR 2026 SC 656 and N^ENAVATH B^UJJI E^TC., V^S. S^{TATE OF} T^{ELANGANA AND OTHERS} reported in AIR 2024 SC 1610. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

Learned Additional SPP submits that, respondent No. 2 had opened a rowdy sheet at Vijayapura Rural Police Station to monitor his criminal activities. He submits that the detaining authority, after careful consideration, was satisfied that the ordinary penal laws were insufficient to curb the detenue’s criminal conduct. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act of 1923, a detention order dated 11.04.2026 was issued as a preventive measure to ensure the maintenance of the public order. The detenue continued to indulge in criminal activities, exhibited a habitual tendency towards criminal conduct and failed to reform. The detenu’s continuous criminal activities posed a real and imminent threat to the public and necessitated preventive detention. He submits that the sponsoring authorities have followed all the procedures prescribed under the Act of 1923. The charges alleged against the detenue are in serious in nature. The detenue was released on bail in some of the criminal cases registered against him and committed breach of the bail conditions. There is no illegality in the detention order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

It is an undisputed fact that the detenue has been involved in 14 criminal cases in the charge which reads as follows:

As could be seen from the detention order dated 11.04.2026 as many as 14 grounds are considered by the detaining authority in order to detain the detenue in jail. It is worth to refer to the cumulative opinion of the detaining authority in keeping the detenue in jail at page No.1 in English version of the detention order, it is stated that:

After quoting the grounds the detaining authority after examining the reports and material placed before it, it has come to the conclusion that in view of the anti-social activities, sense of insecurity has been created in the area of the city. Thus, it is certain that if the detenue is allowed to move free, he will continue to indulge in the anti-social activities like committing a murder, attempt to murder. Therefore, on the above said grounds the detaining authority has passed the detention order.

This Court cannot go into the details of the factual aspects on the basis of which the detaining authority satisfied itself as to the existence of sufficient grounds for detention. Nevertheless, this Court can certainly delve into the legal aspects raised before it. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that the copies of the bail orders were not furnished to the detenue along with the documents and the sponsoring authority had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1923. With regard to the furnishing of the copies of the bail orders.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of A^BDUL S^ATHAR I^BRAHIM M^ANIK E^TC V^S. U^NION O^F I^NDIA A^ND O^RS. reported in 1992(1) SCC 1, observed as follows at para No.6:

From the perusal of the judgments referred to above, it is evident that, irrespective of the knowledge of the contents of the documents or the facts relied upon or recorded therein, copies of such documents must be furnished to the detenue by the detaining authority.

In another judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R^USHIKESH T^ANAJI B^HOITE V^S. S^{TATE OF} M^{AHARASHTRA AND OTHERS} reported in AIR 2012 SC 890 held at para No.9, which reads as follows:

From the perusal of the judgment referred above is with regard to the strict compliance of law by detaining authority. From the perusal of the records it clearly mandates that the detaining authority has the legal obligation of serving the grounds of detention and to ensure that they are in the language known to the detenue which can be easily understand as to the grounds of the detention taken against him and the documents relied upon and referred to by detaining authority. The detaining authority is required to comply with the said legal requirements.

In order to consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Sections 3, 9 to 13 of the Act of 1985, which reads as under:

A bare reading of Section 10 of the Act of 1985 clearly discloses that the detention order made by the State Government shall be placed before the Advisory Board. The procedure to be followed by the Advisory Board is that Board shall consider the materials placed before it, and if satisfied with the grounds of detention, examine the materials and if necessary, call for information from the State Government or any other person. The Advisory Board may confirm the detention order under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act of 1985 and Section 13 of the Act of 1985 provides the maximum period of detention is 12 months from the date of detention. Admittedly, from the perusal of the detention order, it does not indicate regarding the period of detention. It clearly discloses that the detention is for an indefinite period, which is in violation of Section 3(3) and Section 13 of the Act of 1985.

Admittedly, in the instant case, the sponsoring authority has not furnished copies of the bail orders, which is contrary to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (referred to supra).

Thus, from the perusal of the records, it is clear that the sponsoring authority has not furnished copies of the bail orders to the detenue, he would have been in a position to make submissions in that regard. Considering the propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (referred to supra), we are of opinion that the detention order vitiates the constitutional provisions under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the detention order passed by the detaining authority is illegal and void ab initio.

In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass the following: