- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37241 WP No. 22910 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22910 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SHRI H S PRAMOD ALIAS PRAMOD GANDHI S/O. H.S. SIDDALINGAPPA AGED 43 YEARS R/AT. THUPPADAMMA NILAYA, NEAR MEENA NURSING HOME MADHAVANAGARA. T.K. ROAD BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37241 WP No. 22910 of 2025 SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, BHADRAVATHI SUB-DVN, BHADRAVATHI - 577 201. 4. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, OLD TOWN POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI - 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.K.P. YASHODHA., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.07.2025, PASSED BY THE R2-SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT IN M.A.G.C.R NO.17/2025 UNDER SECTION 55 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963, VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37241 WP No. 22910 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The question, whether this Court must intervene with an order under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ['the Police Act'], must be examined as against the touchstone of whether such order is based on reasonable grounds for believing that there would be commission of an offence and that the concerned is satisfied that people are not willing to give evidence in public because of the fear for their person/property. The petitioner, a resident of Bhadravathi, is externed for a period of six months commencing from 15.07.2025 to Raichur on terms which stipulate that there must be a surety and that if he visits Bhadravathi for attending the Court proceedings, he must return to Raichur on the same day. 2. Sri Ravishankar K, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned decision by the second respondent is a complete abuse of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37241 WP No. 22910 of 2025 power because it is essentially based on the proceedings under the Police Act which concluded many years before the impugned order. The learned counsel canvasses that the second respondent has not even bothered to verify whether there is any possibility of the petitioner committing any offence or engaging in any offence, or that any person is brought under duress being restrained from giving evidence. 3. In response, Ms. K.P. Yashodha, a learned Additional Government Advocate, invites this Court's attention to the details of the proceedings as mentioned in the impugned order and submits that the petitioner stands trial in one case and another case is being investigated. Ms. K.P. Yashodha also draws this Court's attention to the report by the jurisdictional police on the petitioner's purported conduct post being admitted to bail in Crime No.71 of 2025 which is under investigation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37241 WP No. 22910 of 2025 4. The second respondent's impugned order in its material part, other than what is elaborately extracted, only reads that the petitioner has the potential to disturb public tranquillity and order. This Court must opine that a perfunctory reasoning such as this will not suffice when what is repeatedly underscored by the Courts that externment orders cannot be passed as a matter of course and must receive a deeper scrutiny by the authorities as it takes away fundamental right of a person. If this is one reason for interference and the other reason is the second respondent's failure to even record that the petitioner has brought any person under duress from giving any statement or evidence for the fear of his/her life or property. This Court finds the second respondent's order is arbitrary and in non- compliance with the statutory requirements. Hence the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37241 WP No. 22910 of 2025 ORDER The petition is allowed and the second respondent's impugned order dated 15.07.2025 [Annexure-A] is quashed, but without prejudice to the authorities to act in accordance with law if there is occasion. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV