- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI WRIT PETITION NO. 107654 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. VIJAYA RATHOD, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MUCHAKANDI TANDA, VANBAY COLONY, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT DIST-587107. - PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUNITHA P.KALASOOR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, (LAW AND ORDER), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT-587107. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT-587107. 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT-587107. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, NAVANAGAR CIRCLE, BAGALKOT, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587107. 6. POLICE INSPECTOR, NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION, BAGALKOT-587107. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP) Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.05.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ORDER NO.DCB/MAG/CR-01/2025-2026 AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03/07/2025 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.HD264 SST 2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the mother of the detenue challenging the order dated 23.05.2025 at Annexure-A passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner and District - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 Magistrate, Bagalkot District acting in terms of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Prohibition of Illicit Liquor Trade, Drug Offences, Gambling, Rowdysium and Immoral Activities, Encroachment of Public Places and Video or Audio Piracy Prevention Act, 1985, which in common parlance is ‘GOONDA Act’ and the consequential order dated 03.07.2025 at Annexure-B. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders at Annexure-A and B suffer from inherent defect. It is pointed out that Annexure-A, which is an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate directs detention of the detenue, who is none other than the son of the petitioner, without mentioning any period of detention. However at Annexure-B, the order passed by the State Government, the period of detention is mentioned as one year commencing from 23.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel submits that having regard to the provisions contained in sub Sec. (1) of Sec. 3, the State - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 Government may pass an order detaining a person and no period of detention need be mentioned in such an order. However, sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 3 empowers the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, by order in writing, may direct that during such period as may be specified in the order, a person may be detained, at the first instance not exceeding three months. However if the State Government is satisfied that the action of such a person is in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order as provided in sub Sec. (1), then the period can be extended from time to time but again not exceeding three months at a time. The learned counsel would therefore submit that both Annexures A and B are not in terms of the mandatory provisions as contained in Sub Sec. 3 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that a plain reading of the impugned detention orders makes it clear that the information contained in Annexure-C which is a communication made by the Police Sub Inspector, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 Navanagar Police Station to the Superintendent of Police, Bagalkot District, contains the information regarding the past conduct of the detenue where nine cases registered against the detenue have been taken into consideration. Another list containing eight cases under preventive action taken against the detenue, where the detenue executed a bond assuring his good behavior is also taken into consideration. 5. It is also pointed out that the said communication does not in any way indict the detenue of having violated the undertaking given in the bonds executed by the detenue. It is pointed that out of nine cases registered in two Police Stations, namely, Navanagar Police Station and Bagalkot Town Police Station, the detenue has been acquitted in four cases and in two cases the detenue paid fine of Rs.100/- and accordingly the detenue was acquitted in both the two cases also. The criminal cases pending against the detenue were only four and the last of the cases registered against - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 the detenue was in Crime No. 135/2023 dated 26.10.2023 at Navanagar Police Station, for the offences u/S 505(2)(1), 506, 34, 504 and 295 of IPC. 6. It is also stated in the communication that the detenue had secured bail in all the four pending cases. The learned counsel would therefore submit that there was no immediate provocation or reason to pass an order of detention detaining the detenue. In this regard, the learned counsel would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nenavath Bujji Vs. State of Telangana (2024 SCC OnLine 367) and submits that there has to be a live link or immediate proximity for detention of the detenue and to take action under the provisions of such preventive detention statutes. 7. Learned counsel would further submit that the Apex Court has elaborately dealt with the scope of the preventive detention Acts such as GOONDA Act as in the present case which is similar to the GOONDA Act in Telangana State - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 which fell for consideration before the Apex Court. It is submitted that the Apex Court has clearly held that the test is whether the conduct of the detenue is such that it has disturbed public order or is likely to disturb public order. For that purpose, there has to be an immediate nexus between the conduct of the detenue which should form the reason and basis for action under the Preventive Detention Act. 8. It is further pointed out that the Apex Court has culled out the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 587. Learned counsel submits that viewed from any angle the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained. 9. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent State and its authorities submitted that statement of objections have been filed at the hands of the respondents along with all relevant information which have been taken into consideration by the detaining authority. It - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 is pointed out from Annexure-D filed along with the writ petition that by order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bagalkot, the detenue was externed from the jurisdiction of Bagalkot to Yadgir District. However the detenue challenged the same in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 100168/2024 and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was stayed on 02.05.2024. This is the immediate and live link for the action taken by the Deputy Commissioner and the District Magistrate under the provisions of the GOONDA Act. 10. Learned HCGP submits that despite the cases registered against the detenue and arrest of the detenue, the detenue has managed to secure the orders of bail and immediately after bail is granted, the detenue has once again indulged in such illegal activities and therefore there was no other option available to the competent authority than to take action under the provisions of the GOONDA Act to detain the detenue whose activities are causing public - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 disorder and are disturbing the peace and tranquility of the society. Learned HCGP would therefore submit that no fault can be found in the impugned orders passed by the detaining authority and the State Government. It is further submitted that all the procedures contemplated under the GOONDA Act have been followed, the detenue has had an opportunity to ventilate his grievances before the Advisory Committee which has approved the impugned orders passed by the detaining authority. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned HCGP and perused the petition papers. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has extensively carved out the earlier judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Ameena Begum, in the subsequent and more recent judgment, i.e., Nenavath Bujji Vs. State of Telangana & Ors. (supra). The Apex Court has held that the crucial issue is whether the activities of the detenue were prejudicial to public order. While the expression of ‘law - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 and order’ is wider in scope as much as contravention of law always affects order, public order however, has a narrow ambit and could be effected by only such contravention, which affected the community or the public at large. However having regard to the undisputed facts obtained in the present case, this Court finds that the satisfaction to be arrived at by the detaining authority is based on irrelevant or invalid grounds. 13. As held by the Apex Court, the satisfaction, although subjective, it must be arrived at on the basis of relevant material; material which is not ‘stale’ and has a ‘live link’ to the satisfaction of the detaining authority. Reference to the previous case registered may not be irrelevant, but that should be only for the purpose of showing the past conduct of the detenue. However there should be a ‘live link’ for the immediate action taken by the detaining authority to detain a person under the provisions of the GOONDA Act. Otherwise, as held in Dhanyam Vs. State of Kerala & - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 Ors. (2025) INSC 809, if on obtaining bail the detenue does anything which requires cancellation of the bail, the State may approach the competent Courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. 14. It requires to be noticed that in Vijayanarayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1984) 3 SCC 14, the Apex Court has held that when a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court great caution should be exercised in scrutinizing validity of the order of prevention which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the Criminal Courts. It is also noticeable that no such allegation is made against the detenue that he has either jumped bail or has violated any of the conditions of the bail. That being the position, the impugned detention order should be held as not based on relevant material or there is no immediate nexus or live link for such an action to be taken against the detenue under the provisions of the GOONDA Act. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in pointing out that Annexure-A is an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, where no period of detention is mentioned. However, it has now come to our notice that a Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Razak V. State of Karnataka (ILR 2017 KAR. 4608) has held that the order of detention is not illegal on account of the failure to specify the period of detention in the order. Therefore, we do not consider the said ground as valid for setting aside the detention order. Nevertheless, as noticed hereinabove, the other grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner are sufficient to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexures-A and B passed by the second respondent - Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, Bagalkot and the State Government are hereby quashed. The detenue-Sanju Raju Rathod, son of the petitioner herein, is directed to be released forthwith. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14358-DB WP No. 107654 of 2025 Copy of this order shall be communicated by the Registry immediately to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Ballari, for immediate action. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE BVV Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17