- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL W.P.H.C. NO.4/2025 BETWEEN: SRI. ANIL KUMAR .V @ ANIL REDDY @ ANIL S/O SRI. VASU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT. FLAT NO.2103, B BLOCK SALAPURIA MAGNIFICIA APARTMENT NEAR TIN FACTORY BENGLALURU - 560016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR & SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVS.,) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY NO.1 INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CRIME, CRIME CENTRAL BRANCH COTTONPET MAIN ROAD, SULTANPET BAKSHI GARDENS CHICKPET, BENGLALURU - 560053. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH WOMEN PROTECTION WING COTTONPET MAIN ROAD SULTANPET, BAKSHI GARDENS CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560053. 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEPARTMENT OF HOME (LAW AND ORDER) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001. 5. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT PRISON BALLARI DISTRICT-583103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP-I WITH SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE DETENTION ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 BEARING NO. 07/CRM(4)/DTN/2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 AT ANENXURE-A. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ABOVE CASE & ETC. THIS W.P.H.C. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) The petitioner is the detenue by name Sri.Anil Kumar V. @ Anil Reddy @ Anil seeking prayer to quash order dated 20.12.2024 passed by respondent No.1, orders dated 30.12.2024 and 03.02.2025 passed by respondent No.4 and seeking prayer to set him free by issuing writ in the nature of habeas corpus. 2. The respondent No.1 passed the order of detention dated 20.12.2024 by exercising power under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum - Grabbers and Video or Audio pirates) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Goonda Act' for short). 3. Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner makes the following submission: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 a. The impugned detention order is passed taking into account four cases registered against the detenue. Out of four cases, Crime.No.517/2022 is registered by Machavaram police station, Andhra Pradesh State for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946; Crime.No.2/2023 is registered by the same police station for the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 & 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, 'ITP Act') and Section 370(A)(2), 370(3) of IPC and two cases have been registered by the Mahadevpura police station in Crime No.602/2023 which is for the offences punishable under Sections 344, 376, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and in Crime No.21/2024 is for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 of ITP Act and Section 370, 370(A)(2), 370(3) read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 66C of Information Technology Act, 2000. It is submitted - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 that in all the four cases the detenue was on bail. The earlier two cases are outside the jurisdiction of the detaining authority and he could not have relied on those two cases to pass the detention order, it shows no application of mind. Hence, the detention order is bad. b. Out of four cases, only two crimes registered against the detenue are under the Immoral Trafficking Act and the detention order is passed against the detenue considering him as a immoral traffic offender. In Crime.No.602/2023 the jurisdiction police have filed a 'B' report and later the jurisdictional Court rejected the said 'B' report and continued the proceedings. The detaining authority could not have placed reliance on Crime.No.602/2023 and arrived at the satisfaction as the police after conclusion of the investigation stated that no case was made out against the detenue. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 c. The last crime registered against the detenue is Crime No.21/2024 by Mahadevpura police on 06.01.2024 and there is a time gap of more than 11 months between the last crime registered against the detenue and the order of detention. Hence, there is no live proximity, and the order of detention is required to be set aside. d. The detenue can speak kannada but he cannot read kannada documents furnished to him. The documents furnished along with the grounds of detention were all in kannada language, they ought to have been submitted with translated copies. The non-furnishing of documents in known language has lead to non-submission of effective representation to the authority. On this ground also the detention order is required to be interfered with. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 e. The order of detention states that the activities of the detenue have continued even after the bail was granted by the Courts and he has violated the bail conditions. However, no material is produced to substantiate such a statement in the grounds of detention. Admittedly, the police have not filed any application for cancellation of bail. Such a statement in the detention order is based on assumption of the authority and there is absolutely no application of mind. f. The satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is based on irrelevant consideration/material, as two FIRs registered against the detenue are outside the jurisdiction of the detaining authority and stale. g. The order of detention does not speak as to how public order is affected by the acts of the detenue. There is a distinction between the public order and law & order. Mere involvement of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 detenue in some crime does not lead to public disorder. Hence, the satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority, approved by the State Government and confirmation order are contrary to the provisions of Goonda Act and the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of his contention he relied on the following decisions: 1. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 496 Additional Secretary to the Government of India & Others Vs. Alka Subhash Gadia & Another 2. (2008) 16 SCC 14 Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another 3. W.P. (H.C.) No.87/2024 Hemachandra alias Prajwal Poojary Vs. State of Karnataka & Others 4. (2023) 9 SCC 587 Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana & Others. 5. 2019 SCC Online Kar 2965 Smt. Jayamma Vs. Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 6. 1962 SCC Online SC 117 Harikisan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others. 7. (2021) 9 SCC 415 Banka Sneha Sheela Vs. State of Telangana & Others. 8. 1965 SCC Online SC 9 Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar & Another 9. (2023) 13 SCC 537 Mallada K. Sri Ram Vs. State of Telangana & Others 10. 2024 SCC Online SC 367 Nenavath Bujji Vs. State of Telangana & Others 11. (2020) 13 SCC 632 Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana & Others 12. (2012) 7 SCC 533 Subhash Popatlal Dave Vs. Union of India & Another 13. 2022 SCC Online SC 1333 Sushanta Kumar Baik Vs. State of Tripura & Others 4. Sri.Belliyappa, Learned SPP-I appearing for respondents-State supports the impugned orders of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 detention and submits that the detaining authority as well as the State Government has strictly followed the procedure contemplated under Sections 3(1) & 3(2) of the Goonda Act. The advisory board is also of the opinion that the detention order is as per law. It is submitted that the detenue has not submitted any representation to the authority, hence, he cannot now contend that there was no opportunity to submit effective representation. It is further submitted that the detenue has been in the habit of indulging in the acts which involved violation of public order since 2022 as is evident from the four cases referred in the detention order. The material available on record indicates that the detenue is involved in very serious and heinous crimes of human trafficking, exploitation of the trafficked persons, running brothel and prostitution racket in the name of running a massage center & spa. In the process, the detenue has procured women of foreign national & wrongfully confined them, such acts of the detenue are prejudicial to the public order. The detaining authority has passed detailed speaking order considering - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 the cases registered against the detenue and on satisfaction, has arrived at a conclusion that the activity of the detenue cannot be curbed by ordinary law. Hence, the authority has proceeded to pass the detention order in order to prevent further activities of the detenue. It is also submitted that in the case registered against the detenue by Mahadevapura Police, charge sheet has been filed, which prima-facie indicates the commission of crime by the detenue and these cases are sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the acts of the detenue is detrimental to the society and leads to public disorder, hence, the detention order and consequential orders impugned in the writ petition are required to be upheld. It is contended that bare perusal of the order and the grounds of detention clearly establishes that the detaining authority and the State Government have thoroughly reviewed all the relevant material placed before it, carefully gone through the circumstances and on being fully satisfied that it is imperative to pass the detention order against the petitioner to prevent further illegal activity which would be - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 detrimental to the public order. He submits that the acts of the detenue as is evident from the material available on record fits into the definition of "immoral traffic offender" as defined under Section 2(h) r/w section 2(a)(v) of the Goonda Act. The authority scrupulously followed the mandate of Sections 3, 8, 10 & 13 of the Goonda Act and passed the order. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. In support of his contentions, learned SPP-I has relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : i. Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah v. State of Gujarat & Others reported in (1988) 3 SCC 153; ii. T.A.Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala & Others reported in (1989) 4 SCC 741; iii. Susamma Baby v. State Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department & Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 2163; iv. Smt.K.Aruna Kumari v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in (1988) 1 SCC 296; - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 v. Aji v. State of Kerala reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Ker 24572; vi. Shobhana P v. State of Kerala & Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 6975; vii. Haradhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal and others reported in (1975) 3 SCC 198; viii. Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another reported in (1991) 1 SCC 128. 5. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned SPP-I appearing for the respondents-State and perused the material available on record including the original records produced by the respondents-State. 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 20.12.2024 passed by respondent No.1 and consequential - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 impugned orders dated 30.12.2024 & 03.02.2025 passed by respondent No.4 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 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 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. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 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 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 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, it indicates that the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any "immoral traffic offender" as defined under Section 2(h) of the Goonda Act, that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, make 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 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 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 - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 confidential. Section 13 of the Goonda Act indicates that the maximum period for detention is 12 months from the date of detention. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases laid down the law on the subject. The General guidelines laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMEENA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA & OTHERS1 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 1 (2023) 9 SCC 587 - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 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." - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 9. Keeping in mind the law governing the subject and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we consider the contentions raised in the writ petition. The original records made available by the learned SPP-I indicates that respondent No.1 passed the detention order along with grounds for detention on 20.12.2024 and they were served on the detenue. The respondent No.1 forwarded the detention order to the State Government on 23.12.2024 and the same was approved by the State Government on 30.12.2024. The approval order of the State Government was communicated to the detenue on the same day. The entire records along with the order of detention and the grounds of detention have been placed before the advisory board and the advisory board communicated the date of hearing as 07.01.2025. The advisory board held its meeting as per the schedule and further adjourned the meeting to 15.01.2025 as per the request of detenue. The advisory board, on 15.01.2025, recorded that the detenue has not submitted any representation; heard the detenue and - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 forwarded its report and opinion to the State Government on 01.02.2025. The advisory board is of the opinion that the detention order is passed as per the provisions of the Goonda Act. The above facts indicate that the respondents have followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Goonda Act and no fault can be found with it. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/detenue is that there is no live and proximate link between the cases registered against the detenue and the order of detention. Respondent No.1 has considered the four cases registered against the detenue, which are as under: (i) Crime No.517/2022 registered by Machvaram Police Station Andhra Pradesh for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with 14(c) Foreigners Act, 1946. (ii) Crime No.2/2023 registered by Machvaram Police Station Andhra Pradesh for the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 & 7 of The - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 370(A)(2) 370(3) of IPC. (iii) Crime No.602/2023 registered by Mahadevapura Police Station Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 344, 376, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and (iv) Crime No.21/2024 registered by Mahadevapura Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 370, 370(A)(2), 370(3) of IPC and Section 66(c) of Information Technology Act, 2000. 11. Admittedly, two cases referred by the detaining authority are outside the jurisdiction of the detaining authority. Further, out of four cases, two cases are registered under provisions other than the provisions of ITP Act, hence, placing reliance on those other two cases by the detaining authority amounts to consideration of irrelevant material to come to the conclusion that the acts of the detenue falls within the definition of Section 2(h) of the Goonda Act. The last crime registered against the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 detenue is dated 06.01.2024 and the detention order is passed on 20.12.2024 in which there is a time gap of more than 11 months from the last crime. The last incident has no live and proximate link with the satisfaction arrived by the authority in passing the detention order. The authority has not provided any explanation for the delay in passing the detention order from the last incident. Hence, the judgment relied on by the learned SPP-I in the cases of Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah, T.A.Abdul Rahman and Susamma Baby, referred supra, have no application to the facts of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ameena Begum referred supra at paragraph No.28.7 has clearly held that the satisfaction has been arrived at the act 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 the material which is stale. In the instant case, there is no live and proximate link between the incident and the detention order, hence the detention order is bad in law. A similar view was taken - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallada K Sri Ram referred supra. The said principle has also been followed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Rahiman vs. State of Karnataka2 referred supra. 12. The second contention of the petitioner is that the detenue could not submit effective representation in view of the fact that he was not provided with the document relied on by the detaining authority in the language known to him. The detention order itself makes it clear that the detenue can speak Kannada, English, Telugu, Malayalam and Hindi languages and he is able to read and write English, Malayalam and Telugu languages. Admittedly, the document furnished along with the grounds of detention by the respondent authorities are in vernacular language i.e., Kannada. Though the statement of objection says that translated documents were furnished, there is no material placed to that effect. The 2 WP(HC) No.101/2024 - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harikisan referred supra held that the communication of the grounds of detention and documents relied shall be furnished in the language known to the detenue in order to satisfy the mandate of Article 22(4) & (5) of the Constitution of India. In other words, the authority shall afford an opportunity to the detenue to submit effective representation against the order of detention. In the instant case, the absence of furnishing the documents relied on by the detaining authority in the language known to the detenue has resulted in denying him the right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Hence, on this ground also the detention order is bad in law. 13. The third contention of the petitioner is that the satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is on assumption of certain facts and on irrelevant considerations. The grounds of detention clearly indicate that the detaining authority has taken into account two irrelevant cases which are not registered under the - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 provisions of ITP Act and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is required to be detained. Admittedly, Crime No.517/2022 registered by Machavaram Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, is under the provisions of Foreigners Act and Crime No.602/2023 registered by of Mahadevapura Police Station is under the provisions of IPC. Hence, placing reliance on these two cases by the detaining authority and arriving at a conclusion that the detenue is "immoral traffic offender" as defined under Section 2(h) of the Goonda Act is bad in law and amounts to consideration of irrelevant material to arrive at subjective satisfaction to exercise power under Section 3(2) of the Goonda Act. 14. Further, the detaining authority has recorded the reasons that in spite of legal action initiated against the detenue, he continued his illegal and immoral activity which has led to public disorder and such a finding of the detaining authority is absolutely without any basis. There is no material whatsoever placed on record as to how the detenue has continued his illegal activity of immoral - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 trafficking after the last crime registered against him i.e., on 06.01.2024. Learned SPP-I in his additional statement of objections has contended that on 05.11.2024, the Additional Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, received communication dated 04.10.2024 requesting the authority to issue a 'No Objection Certificate' to reopen 'Nirvana International Spa', despite its closure due to involvement in illicit activities. Such a letter demonstrates that the detenue continued his immoral trafficking activity and this letter establishes live and proximate link and also establishes the intention to continue the illegal activity. The said contention of learned SPP-I is taken note for the purpose of rejection only. Paragraph No.9 of the additional statement of objections cannot improve the order of detention. It is a trite law that by way of affidavit, the authority cannot substitute the reasons assigned in the order of detention and the order has to stand or fall on its own reasons. Hence, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by respondent No.1 that the detenue continued his illegal immoral trafficking activity is without any basis. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 15. The grounds of detention further indicate that the detenue has threatened the witnesses (victims) that they shall not depose before the Court against him and there is no change in his behavior, he has continued to indulge in immoral/criminal activities and spoiled the public order. Such a finding of the detaining authority is again without any basis. There is no material whatsoever to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner/detenue has threatened any of the witnesses and there is no material to show that the detenue has continued his immoral/criminal activities, which has led to public disorder, and it is only an assumption by the authority that the detenue has threatened the witnesses without any material basis. Hence, such satisfaction of the authority is no satisfaction in the eye of law and even on this ground the order of detention is required to be interfered with. Further, the detaining authority has strangely reasoned that the detenue's immoral activity has caused breach of public order and cannot be prevented under ordinary law - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 of the land and that the detenue has repeatedly violated the bail conditions imposed by the Courts. For the aforesaid reason no material particulars are furnished, except referring four cases registered against the detenue and no material is available on record to come to the conclusion that the ordinary law of the land is insufficient to curb the activities of the detenue. Hence, such finding is without any basis. Further, there is no mention in the grounds of detention as to which are the bail orders and which are the conditions of such bail orders have been violated by the detenue. In the absence of any material particulars with regard to the alleged violation of bail conditions, the grounds of detention can be termed as vague and without any basis. The subjective satisfaction arrived by the authority based on such vague assertion in the grounds of detention is contrary to Section 3(2) of the Goonda Act and the settled position of law. Hence, even on this ground also the order of detention is required to be set at naught. This view of ours gains support from the - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ameena Begum and Nenavath Bujji referred supra. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ameena Begum referred supra has held on the issue of subjective satisfaction, public disorder and live proximity, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted as under: 37. We may refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar [Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 9 : (1966) 1 SCR 709] , where the difference between “law and order” and “public order” was lucidly expressed by Hon'ble M. Hidayatullah, J. (as the Chief Justice then was) in the following words : (SCR pp. 745-46, paras 54-55) “54. … Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of them tried to raise communal passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are. … 55. It will thus appear that just as “public order” in the rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than those affecting “security of State”, “law and order” also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting “public order”. One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State.” 46. In fine, what we find is that the order of detention impugned in that writ petition failed to differentiate between offences which create a “law and order” situation and which prejudicially affect or tend to prejudicially affect “public order”. The present detention order fares no better. Even if the offences referred to in the detention order, alleged to have been committed by the detenu have led to the satisfaction being formed, still the same are separate and stray acts affecting private individuals and the repetition of similar such acts would not tend to affect the even flow of public life. The offence in respect of the minor girl did exercise our consideration for some time but we have noted that the detenu was not arrested because of an order passed by the High Court on an application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CrPC” hereafter). The investigating agency not having elected to have such order quashed by a higher forum, the facts have their own tale to tell. Even otherwise, the gravity of the offences alleged in Arun Ghosh [Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B., - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 (1970) 1 SCC 98 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 67] was higher in degree, yet, the same were not considered as affecting “public order”. The only other offence that could attract the enumerated category of “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” and an order of preventive detention, if at all, is the stray incident where the detenu has been charged under Section 353IPC and where the police has not even contemplated an arrest under Section 41CrPC. 47. On an overall consideration of the circumstances, it does appear to us that the existing legal framework for maintaining law and order is sufficient to address like offences under consideration, which the Commissioner anticipates could be repeated by the detenu if not detained. We are also constrained to observe that preventive detention laws—an exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations—ought not to have been invoked in this case as a tool for enforcement of “law and order”. This, for the reason that, the Commissioner despite being aware of the earlier judgment and order of the High Court dated 16-8- 2021 [Hakeem Khan v. State of Telangana, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 3663] passed the detention order ostensibly to maintain “public order” without once more appreciating the difference between maintenance of “law and order” and maintenance of “public order”. The order of detention is, thus, indefensible. 54. It would not be out of place to examine, at this juncture, whether the Commissioner as the detaining authority formed the requisite satisfaction in the manner required by law i.e. by drawing inference of a likelihood of the detenu indulging in prejudicial activities on objective data. Here, we would bear in mind the caution sounded by this Court in Rajesh Gulati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Rajesh Gulati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2002) 7 SCC 129 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1627] that a - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 detaining authority should be free from emotions, beliefs or prejudices while ordering detention as well as take note of the judgment and order dated 16-8-2021 [Hakeem Khan v. State of Telangana, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 3663] of the High Court on the previous writ petition, instituted by the detenu's father. On such writ petition, the High Court held as follows : (Hakeem Khan case [Hakeem Khan v. State of Telangana, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 3663] , SCC OnLine TS para 12) “12. … Under these circumstances, the apprehension of the detaining authority that since the detenus were granted bail in all the crimes, there is imminent possibility of the detenus committing similar offences which are detrimental to public order unless they are prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of detention, is highly misplaced. … In the instant cases, since the detenus are released on bail, in the event if it is found that the detenus are involved in further crimes, the prosecution can apprise the same to the Court concerned and seek cancellation of bail. Moreover, the criminal law was already set into motion against the detenus. Since the detenus have allegedly committed offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the said crimes can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The detaining authority cannot be permitted to subvert, supplant or substitute the punitive law of land, by ready resort to preventive detention.” 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nenavath Bujji referred supra, has held on the issues of "cancellation of bail", "public order" and "subjective - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 satisfaction", the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted as under: "41. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant detenu is also right in his submission that if it is the case of the Detaining Authority that there was no other option but to pass an order of preventive detention as the appellant detenu came to be released by the regular criminal courts on bail then the State should have gone for cancellation of bail. Whenever, any accused is released on bail by any criminal court in connection with any offence, whether specifically said so in the order of bail while imposing conditions or not, it is implied that the bail is granted on the condition that the accused shall not indulge in any such offence or illegal activities in future. In some cases, courts do deem fit to impose one of such conditions for the grant of bail. However, even in those cases, where such a condition is not specifically imposed while granting bail it is implied that if such accused after his release on bail once again commits any offence or indulges in nefarious activities then his bail is liable to be cancelled. In the case on hand, the State instead of proceeding to pass an order of detention could have approached the courts concerned for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the appellant detenu had continued to indulge in nefarious activities and many more FIRs have been registered against him. 42. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 633, wherein in paras 11 and 19 respectively, this Court observed as under: “11. The detention order was challenged by the wife of the detenu in a habeas corpus petition before the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court. The ground taken by the petitioner before the High Court was that reliance has been taken by the Authority of - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 four cases of chain snatching, as already mentioned above. The admitted position is that in all these four cases the detenu has been released on bail by the Magistrate. Moreover, in any case, the nature of crime as alleged against the petitioner can at best be said to be a law and order situation and not the public order situation, which would have justified invoking the powers under the preventive detention law. This, however did not find favour with the Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the detention order. xxxxxxxxx 19. In any case, the State is not without a remedy, as in case the detenu is much a menace to the society as is being alleged, then the prosecution should seek for the cancellation of his bail and/or move an appeal to the Higher Court. But definitely seeking shelter under the preventive detention law is not the proper remedy under the facts and circumstances of the case.” ii. Summary of the Findings. 43. We summarize our conclusions as under:— (i) The Detaining Authority should take into consideration only relevant and vital material to arrive at the requisite subjective satisfaction, (ii) It is an unwritten law, constitutional and administrative, that wherever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of the statutory functionary, there is an implicit duty to apply his mind to the pertinent and proximate matters and eschew those which are irrelevant & remote, - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 (iii) There can be no dispute about the settled proposition that the detention order requires subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority which, ordinarily, cannot be questioned by the court for insufficiency of material. Nonetheless, if the detaining authority does not consider relevant circumstances or considers wholly unnecessary, immaterial and irrelevant circumstances, then such subjective satisfaction would be vitiated, (iv) In quashing the order of detention, the Court does not sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective satisfaction. The anxiety of the Court should be to ascertain as to whether the decision- making process for reaching the subjective satisfaction is based on objective facts or influenced by any caprice, malice or irrelevant considerations or non-application of mind, (v) While making a detention order, the authority should arrive at a proper satisfaction which should be reflected clearly, and in categorical terms, in the order of detention, (vi) The satisfaction cannot be inferred by mere statement in the order that “it was necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. Rather the detaining authority will have to justify the detention order from the material that existed before him and the process of considering the said material should be reflected in the order of detention while expressing its satisfaction, (vii) Inability on the part of the state's police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention, (viii) Justification for such an order should exist in the ground(s) furnished to the detenu to reinforce the order of detention. It cannot be explained by - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 reason(s)/grounds(s) not furnished to the detenu. The decision of the authority must be the natural culmination of the application of mind to the relevant and material facts available on the record, and (ix) To arrive at a proper satisfaction warranting an order of preventive detention, the detaining authority must, first examine the material adduced against the prospective detenu to satisfy itself whether his conduct or antecedent(s) reflect that he has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, second, if the aforesaid satisfaction is arrived at, it must further consider whether it is likely that the said person would act in a manner prejudicial to the public order in near future unless he is prevented from doing so by passing an order of detention. For passing a detention order based on subjective satisfaction, the answer of the aforesaid aspects and points must be against the prospective detenu. The absence of application of mind to the pertinent and proximate material and vital matters would show lack of statutory satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority." 18. The authority cannot place reliance on the stale incidents and arrive at a conclusion to pass the detention order, while in this case, irrelevant cases registered against the detenue have been taken into consideration while passing the detention order. Hence, on this ground also the order of detention is required to be set aside. This view of ours gain support from the decision of the Hon'ble - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 Supreme Court in the case of Sama Aruna vs. State of Telangana3. 19. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that detaining authority has not applied its mind in passing the detention order at page No.2 of the grounds of detention, wherein the detaining authority has referred that on 06.11.2024 based on credible information CCB and local Mahadevapura Police have conducted a joint raid on 'Nirvana International Spa', where 39 girls have been rescued from the detenue's brothel house. It is not forthcoming from the record, whether the raid is on 06.11.2024 or on 06.01.2024, as the charge sheet material of Crime No.21/2024 indicates that the police have raided the premises of the detenue on 06.01.2024, however, it is not known why 06.11.2024 is the date mentioned in the grounds of detention. Such lapse of the detaining authority indicates that the detention order is passed in a casual manner and consequential satisfaction 3 (2018) 12 SCC 150 - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 arrived by the authority in passing such order does not withstand the scrutiny of law. 20. On examining the original records, pleadings, the impugned order of detention, grounds of detention, approval order of the State Government, the opinion of the Advisory Board and the confirmation order of the State Government, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of detention, the approval order of the State Government and the confirmation order of the State Government impugned in the writ petition are not in consonance with the provisions of law and the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 21. Having held that the detention order under challenge is contrary to law and requires interference, hence, 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: - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC:8743-DB W.P.H.C. No.4/2025 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned detention order dated 20.12.2024 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A, order of approval dated 30.12.2024 passed by respondent No.4 at Annexure-F and the confirmation order dated 03.02.2025 passed by respondent No.4 at Annexure-G are hereby quashed. iii. The respondents are directed to set the detenue at liberty forthwith. iv. Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of the order to the Superintendent of Prison, Ballari Central Prison, Ballari, forthwith for compliance. v. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK/BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1