- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35474 WP No. 25499 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25499 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SMT MANJULA SMT.MANJULA W/O RAJESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O LAXMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, NEAR CANARA BANK, 7TH CROSS, CHOWDAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, VIDYANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA- 577 201 (IN THE ORDER OF EXTERNMENT ORDER NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER IS MENTIONED AS SMT.MANJULAMMA BADDI MANJULAMMA W/O RAJESH, RESIDING LAXMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, VIDYANAGARA, 6TH CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA) &PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVINDRA B.DESHPANDE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPUTY CHIEF SECRETARY (LAW AND ORDER) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35474 WP No. 25499 of 2025 DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDA, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, SHIMOGA SUB-DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 4. POLICE INSPECTOR, HUBBALLI RURAL POLICE STATION, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 020. 5. POLICE INSPECTOR, KOTE POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA -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 I) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/08/2025 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB- DIVISION MAGISTRATE, SHIMOGA SUB-DIVISION, SHIMOGA / R2 IN NO. MAG.CR.07/2025 AS PER ANNX- E. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35474 WP No. 25499 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent9s order dated 06.08.2025 [Annexure-E] under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 [for short, 8the Police Act9]. The second respondent, by the impugned order, has externed the petitioner from Shivamogga to Hubballi for six months [06.02.2026] on terms such as that she can travel to Shivamogga to attend cases but return to Hubballi on the same day and that she must mark her attendance every day with the Hubballi Rural Police Station. The second respondent9s decision to extern the petitioner is based on the opinion that she has nine cases pending against her and that she acts as if none can control her and that her presence in Shivamogga would be harmful to public order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35474 WP No. 25499 of 2025 2. Mr. Ravindra B Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, emphasizes that [a] the petitioner stands trial in the proceedings initiated in the years 2022-24, [b] the petitioner is accused of committing offences under Section 309 [4] of BNSS in Crime No. 49/2025, [c] the petitioner is on bail in each of these proceedings, [d] in the years 2024-25 the petitioner is called upon to execute a bond for good behaviour as contemplated under Section 107 CRPC/126 of BNSS and she has not violated such bond, [e] the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are related to the allegations of theft of jewelry and money lending punishable under the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and for the offences under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35474 WP No. 25499 of 2025 3. Mr. Ravindra B Deshpande, while emphasizing that the petitioner is not served with the report of the jurisdictional police though served with the notice of enquiry as contemplated under Section 58 of the Police Act, further submits that the second respondent could not have just directed the petitioner9s externment because she stands trial and that the second respondent should have seen that the decision to remove the person from a particular jurisdiction must be based on a reasonable assessment of the concerned fearing to give evidence because of the threat to their life and property. 4. Ms. K. P. Yashodha, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the second respondent has issued notice and extended due opportunity to the petitioner and that the petitioner has also responded to the notice and the petitioner cannot complain of any lack of opportunity or failure to comply with the requirements of Section 58 of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35474 WP No. 25499 of 2025 Police Act. On the merits of the decision otherwise, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the allegations against the petitioner in the different proceedings from the year 2022 are serious and it is because of her propensity to disturb public order as a habitual offender. The learned Additional Advocate General relies upon the jurisdictional police officer9s report to bolster the respondents9 case that the petitioner is a habitual offender. 5. The records are perused in the light of these submissions, and in the backdrop of the allegations against the petitioner, a lady. The allegations are that she was responsible for the loss of jewelry during a wedding in May 2022, that she had slapped another because there was a denial of the allegation that certain obscene clips were recorded, that she had refused to return the advance paid for the occupation of her residential property, and that she was lending money at an exorbitant rate of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35474 WP No. 25499 of 2025 interest. The concerned Courts have admitted the petitioner to bail in each of these proceedings. The jurisdictional police [the fourth respondent] has forwarded a report to the second respondent setting forth the details of the allegations and the proceedings as aforesaid stating that the petitioner brings the concerned under duress to pay exorbitant interest. 6. This Court must observe that records show that there is compliance with the requirement of due opportunity under Section 58 of the Police Act and that nothing is brought on record to justify the assertion that the second respondent did not furnish to the petitioner a copy of the fourth respondent9s police report. However, this Court must observe that in terms of Section 55 of the Police Act a person could be removed from a jurisdiction if the authority [empowered by the State Government] can justifiably opine that the people are afraid to give evidence - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35474 WP No. 25499 of 2025 against the person to be removed for the fear of safety to their life and property. 7. The second respondent has recorded no opinion in this regard, nor brought out materials that would justify a reasonable inference on this count. This requirement must be a condition precedent for an order for externment. Further, this Court must also consider that the petitioner is a lady, and that there is no allegation of the petitioner violating the good behaviour bond executed as required under Section 107 Cr.P.C./126 of BNSS. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed, and the second respondent9s impugned order dated 06.08.2025 [Annexure-E] is quashed but observing that this outcome shall not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35474 WP No. 25499 of 2025 prelude the respondent from initiating all such proceedings as may be permissible in law and in holding the petitioner to the Bond executed. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA*