SHIVAKUMAR A Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAWS(KAR)-2025-2-1
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (FROM: BENGALURU)
Decided on February 01,2025

Shivakumar A Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

AMEENA BEGUM VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL,J. - (1.)The petitioner No.1 is the detenue and the petitioner No.2 is the father of the detenue. They are seeking prayer to set free the petitioner No.1-detenue by issuing a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus and by quashing the order dtd. 24/3/2024 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-E and the order dtd. 28/3/2024 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-F.
(2.)The detention order came to be passed by the respondent No.2 by exercising the power conferred under sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 3 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 'the Goonda Act'). The said order has been confirmed by the respondent No.1. The grounds of detention have been served on the detenue. The detention order, grounds of detention and the file was placed before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board forwarded its opinion to the respondent No.1. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 passed an order dtd. 22/4/2024 as required under the Goonda Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
(3.)Sri.B.Roopesha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the detention order dtd. 24/3/2024 passed by the respondent No.2 is contrary to the provisions of the Goonda Act. It is submitted that the first two complaints filed against the detenue are by his uncle and cousin brother relating to civil disputes and other cases relied on by the Authority while passing the detention order are stale matters and in all the cases, the detenue was on bail. These aspects have not been considered by the respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order of detention. It is further submitted that there is no duration of detention mentioned in the impugned order and on this ground also, interference is called for. It is also submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the detenue and hurriedly impugned orders were passed. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting free the detenue.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.