- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1995-DB W.P.H.C. No.114/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL W.P.H.C. NO.114/2024 BETWEEN: NISARGA A.R. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O RAVI .S AND WIFE OF VARUN RESIDING AT NO.51, 12TH MAIN 4TH CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK AVALAHALLI MAIN ROAD, SRINAGAR BANGALORE SOUTH, BANSHANKARI BAGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHAN VEERANNA TIGADI, ADV.,) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU NO.1 INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU - 560001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPANGI NAGARA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560001 (REP. BY SECRETARY LAW AND ORDER). 3. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT PRISON RAMANAGARA - 562159. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1995-DB W.P.H.C. No.114/2024 (BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP-I WITH SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DECLARING THE DETENTION OF VARUN @ MEDDA, SON OF SHANTHARAJU ILLEGAL AND SET HIM AT LIBERTY FORTHWITH AFTER QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING REFERENCE NO.03/CRM(4)/DTN/2024 DATED 14/06/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF THE GOONDA ACT, THE ORDER BEARING REFERENCE NUMBER HUSBAND 264 SST 2024 DATED 20/06/2024 (ANNEXURE B) PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 3(3) OF THE GOONDA ACT AND ORDER BEARING REFERENCE NUMBER HUSBAND 264 SST 2024 DATED 25/07/2024 (ANNEXURE C) PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE GOONDA ACT & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This writ petition is filed by the wife of the detenue involved in the order of detention dated 14.06.2024 challenging the order of detention passed by respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) holding petitioner's husband to be a goonda under Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1995-DB W.P.H.C. No.114/2024 Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Video and Audio Pirates) Act, 1985 (for short ' the 1985 Act'). 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the order of detention is bad for want of subjective satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority. It is contended that there are clear errors committed by the detaining authority which proves that there is no proper consideration of even the facts of the matter which would show that there would be no proper subjective satisfaction entered by the authority to hold that the detention of the petitioner's husband under the provisions of the 1985 Act is required. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on several judgments of this Court including the decision reported in Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana1, Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Malik vs. Union of India 1 (2023) 9 SCC 587 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1995-DB W.P.H.C. No.114/2024 & others2, Alakshit vs. State of Maharashtra3, Elizabeth RaibhaiPrabhudas Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra4 as well as several other decisions. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenue was enlarged on bail in all the criminal cases charged against him. In such circumstances, the necessity for detaining him again for the very same criminal activities required a consideration at the hands of the detaining authority. However, in the instant case there were clear errors in the mentioning of the criminal petitions as well as the orders granting bail to the detenue in 7 crimes which were taken into consideration for passing the order of detention. It is submitted that in 3 of the 7 cases, the orders of granting bail were specifically wrongly mentioned. It is submitted that in Crime No.375/2017, the detenue was granted bail in Crl.P.No.180/2018 as is evident from Annexure -E produced along with the writ petition. Annexure-E is an order passed on 05.02.2018. 2 (1992) 1 SCC 1 3 2022 SCC Online Bom. 7439 4 2021 SCC Online Bom. 206 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1995-DB W.P.H.C. No.114/2024 However, in the order of detention it is wrongly stated that the detenue had been granted bail in Crime.No.375/2017 by the order dated 23.06.2018 in SC.No.1026/2018. Further in the 5th crime i.e., Crime No.54/2020, the bail was actually granted in Crl.P.No.5665/2021 which is produced at Annexure-J by order dated 21.10.2021. However, it is also wrongly stated as bail order granted in Crl.Misc.No.4668/2021. Further, in the 6th crime i.e., Crime No.306/2023 bail was granted in Crl.Misc.No.2983/2024 at Annexure-L by the order dated 15.05.2024. However, the detention order records the bail was granted in Crl.Misc.No.12086/2023. 4. It is contended that the detenue was detained under Section 3(1) of the 1985 Act on 14.06.2024. The first respondent had forwarded the order of detention to respondent No.2 for approval on 15.06.2024. The order of detention was approved under Section 3(3) of the 1985 Act on 20.06.2024. Though the detenue had submitted a representation on 26.06.2024, the same was rejected on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1995-DB W.P.H.C. No.114/2024 28.06.2024. Further, a representation submitted by the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenue was also rejected by Annexure-Q on 19.07.2024. When the matter was placed before the Advisory Board, the Advisory Board also opined that there are sufficient grounds to detain the detenue on 20.07.2024 and second representation urged by the detenue also came to be rejected on 03.08.2024. Thereafter, on 25.07.2024 respondent No.2 passed an order detaining the detenue for a term of one year from 14.06.2024 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the fact that even the case numbers and the dates of the orders granting the bail have been wrongly recorded in the order of detention would clearly show that there is complete want of application of mind by the recommending authority as well as the detaining authority. It is submitted that where detention orders are passed without considering the specific orders granting bail which should also form a part of the records of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1995-DB W.P.H.C. No.114/2024 detention, the detention order would be bad for non application of mind and for want of subjective satisfaction. It is submitted that since in the instant case, the petitioner's husband was admittedly enlarged on bail in all the cases which has been considered against him, the orders granting bail and the necessity to keep the detenue under detention inspite of bail having been granted in all the cases, would have been extremely relevant and would form the subjective satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority for keeping the detenue under preventive detention. It is therefore contended that in view of the fact that even the dates and the orders granting bail are wrongly mentioned at least in 3 out of the 7 cases in the order of detention. It is clear that there is complete want of application of mind and lack of subjective satisfaction in the order of the detaining authority. 6. The learned SPP appearing for the respondent contends that there were several criminal cases registered - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1995-DB W.P.H.C. No.114/2024 against the detenue and it was on account of the fact that his detention was highly necessary that the impugned order was passed. 7. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that there is merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the mistakes which have occurred in the detention order. It appears that the detenue was granted bail in all the 7 cases which have been registered as against him and which were considered for passing the order of detention. It is seen that the details of the bail granted to the detenue in the criminal cases registered against him and the details of the orders wrongly referred in the detention order are placed on record which is extracted as under: Sl. No. Case No. Order granting bail Order wrongly referred in detention order 1. Crime No. 249 of 2017 Crl Misc. 8309 of 2017 --- 2. Crime No. 375 of 2017 Crl. Petition No. 180/2018 (Annex. E, page 61-64, Order dated 23/06/2018 in SC 1026 of 2018 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1995-DB W.P.H.C. No.114/2024 writ petition) (page 34, Annex. A, writ petition) 3. Crime No. 63 of 2019 Crl. Misc. 3891 of 2019 --- 4. Crime No. 250 of 2019 Crl. Misc. 637 of 2020 --- 5. Crime No. 54 of 2020 Crl. Petition 5665 of 2021 (Annex. J, page 86-91, writ petition) Crl. Misc. 4668 of 2021 (Annex. K, page 92-111, writ petition & page 36, Annex. A., writ petition) 6. Crime No. 306 of 2023 Crl. Misc. 2983 of 2024 (Annex L, page 112-121, writ petition) Crl. Misc. 12086 of 2023 (Annex. M, page 122-129, writ petition & Annex. A, page 37, writ petition) 7. Crime No. 330 of 2023 Crl. Misc 1989 of 2024 --- 8. Though learned SPP appearing for the respondents submitted that the fact that 7 cases were registered against the petitioner and that even after being enlarged on bail, he had proceed to commit offences one after the other would be enough for the subjective satisfaction required to place the detenue under - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1995-DB W.P.H.C. No.114/2024 preventive detention, we are of the opinion that in view of the fact that there were clear errors in the order of detention in the matter of recording the grant of bail to the writ petitioner, it is clear that there was want of application of mind in the matter of passing of the order of detention. It goes without saying that an order of preventive detention is a measure which can be resorted to only when the situation demands the detention of an individual where the detaining authority comes to the conclusion, from the materials on record, that he is likely to indulge in activity which will result in breach of further orders unless he is so detained. Such subjective satisfaction is to be assured at by the detaining authority on a proper and careful consideration of the materials placed before it. When the materials placed before the authority, including the details of the crimes and the bail granted to the detenue are themselves flawed, the nature of the application of mind and the necessary satisfaction of the authority cannot be said to be present. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1995-DB W.P.H.C. No.114/2024 9. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of detention cannot be sustained. Writ petition is therefore allowed. The order of detention is set aside. The Detenue shall be released from detention, in case his detention is not required in any other criminal case. Registry shall immediately communicate the copy of the judgment to respondent No.3 - Superintendent, District prison, Ramanagara forthwith. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3