Karnataka High Court
Puttaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2024
-1-
WPHC No. 97 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO. 97 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
PUTTARAJU,
S/O CHIKKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT, GANIGARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK,
HASSAN-01.
(SINCE THE SON OF THE PETITIONER
BY NAME CHARAN @ KANGLI HAS
BEEN DETAINED IN PRISON THIS
PETITION IS REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
LAW AND ORDER,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-01.
2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN DISTRICT-01.
-2-
WPHC No. 97 of 2024
3 . SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
NEAR SUMUKA HOTEL ,
R.C ROAD,
OPP TO HIMS HOSPITAL,
HASSAN-573 201.
4 . DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
NARASIMHARAJA CIRCLE,
B.M ROAD,
HASSAN-573 201.
5 . SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON
DISTRICT PRISON,
BIDAR-01
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION COMMANDING THE
RESPONDENTS FOR PRODUCTION OF THE BODY OF THE SON
OF THE PETITIONER, CHARAN @ KANGLI IN THE COURT AND
SEE HIM AT LIBERTY AND ETC.,
THIS WPHC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 19.12.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, UMESH M.
ADIGA J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING::
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
-3-
WPHC No. 97 of 2024
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition is filed by father of
the detenue by name Charan @ Kangali S/o Puttaraju
aged 24 years (for short ‘detenue’) challenging the order
of detention passed by the respondents and also prayed to
quash them. Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
a. To quash the impugned detention order
bearing No.MAG/712/2023-24 passed by
respondent No.2 dated 03.04.2024 vide
Annexure – A.b. To quash the order of confirmation
bearing SANKYE: HD157 SST 2024 passed by
respondent No.1 dated 12.04.2024 vide
Annexure – E.c. To quash the impugned order of extension
of the quash dated 03.05.2024 vide Annexure –
G in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Brief facts of the case are that:
Detenue was involved in thirteen(13) criminal cases
registered in Hassan, Hassan Rural, Alur, Konannuru and
-4-WPHC No. 97 of 2024
Goruru police stations, for different kind of offences
punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code as
well as The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic
Substances Act,1985. The Superintendent of Police,
Hassan, found that presence of the detenue was causing
disturbances to public order and tranquillity and he was
becoming menace to the society. It appears
Superintendent of Police, Hassan made a representation to
District Magistrate, Hassan by a letter dated 29.03.2024
along with the supporting materials, to pass detention
order. The District Magistrate, Hassan, on considering the
said materials was satisfied that there were reasons to
detain the detenue under Karnataka Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,
Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum
Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 Act (for
short ‘Goonda Act‘ 1985) and passed an order dated
03.04.2024 to detain detenue in District Prison, Bidar
under Goonda Act, 1985. The District Magistrate
-5-
WPHC No. 97 of 2024
submitted files to Government for confirmation of the
Detention Order.
3. The Government after obtaining the opinion
from the Advisory Board and following the procedures
under the Goonda Act, 1985 confirmed the order of
detention, by its order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure – D).
The Government by order dated 03.05.2024 ordered to
detain him for a period of one year from 03.04.2024
(Annexure -G) under the Goonda Act, 1985.
4. It appears detenue filed a representation dated
08.04.2024 (Annexure – C) for reviewing the detention
order. The Government on considering the representation
passed order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure – D) rejecting
the said representation.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP for
respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the orders passed by the District Magistrate as well as
-6-
WPHC No. 97 of 2024
confirmed by the Government are illegal and they are
contrary to the provisions of the Goonda Act. The
Government cannot detain a person under Preventive
Detention Act for a period of one year at a time, which is
contrary to Section 3 of the Goonda Act. The Government
did not place the material before the Advisory Board within
21 days and copies of the relevant documents were not
supplied to the detenue. Therefore, he was unable to place
his claim before the competent authority. As per the list of
cases mentioned in the orders, the last offence alleged to
have been committed was on 07.08.2023. Detention
proceedings commenced from 29.03.2024. There is a gap
of around 8 months from the last incident till detention
proceedings were commenced. It clearly indicates that
there was no reasons to initiate detention proceedings
since there was no cause of action. The said order passed
by the Government is illegal and hence prayed to quash
the same.
7. The learned HCGP supported the Government
order and further submits that all the procedures
-7-
WPHC No. 97 of 2024
prescribed under Goonda Act were strictly complied with
prior to passing of the detention order. The detenue has
been committing the crime against the innocent persons
without any enmity with an intention to create fear among
the public and extract money from them. All the offences
are heinous in nature. He got released on bail in the
criminal cases registered against him and committed
breach of conditions of bail. The District Magistrate as well
as the Government after subjective satisfaction of the
materials placed before them, passed the detention order.
There is no illegality in the said orders. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the petition. The learned HCGP submitted office
file of the detention proceedings.
8. We have gone through the entire materials
placed before us. The District Magistrate as well as the
Government strictly complied with procedures prescribed
under the Goonda Act before passing of the detention
order. Representation was given to District Magistrate on
29.03.2024, by the Superintendent of Police and District
-8-
WPHC No. 97 of 2024
Magistrate passed detention order dated 03.04.2024 along
with reasons for detention and his satisfaction for passing
of such detention order. District Magistrate submitted the
file to the Government and the Government by order
dated 12.04.2024 confirmed the order of District
Magistrate. The matter was referred to Advisory Board.
The contention of petitioner that within 21 days materials
shall be placed before the Advisory Board is incorrect.
Section 10 of Goonda Act, 1985 says that Advisory Board
shall be constituted within three weeks. Thereafter,
immediately after receipt of the opinion of the Advisory
Board, further orders were passed. Detaining authority
followed strict procedures prescribed under the Goonda
Act.
9. The detenue is said to have committed in all 13
crimes and out of which, in one case he was acquitted and
remaining cases are pending for consideration. Out of said
13 crimes registered except crime No. 27/2021, which was
registered under the provision of NDPS Act, other offences
are coming under the Chapter XVI of IPC. Out of them,
-9-
WPHC No. 97 of 2024
Cr.No.214/2020 dated 22.10.2020, Cr.No.158/2023 dated
02.07.2023, Cr.No.99/2023 dated 07.08.2023 are
pertaining to offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC
in addition to other offences. As rightly submitted by the
learned HCGP, most of the offences were committed not
due to prior enmity. The reasons stated in the detention
order shows that it was passed by District Magistrate as
well as Government, after subjective satisfaction.
10. Under Section 3 read with Section 13 of Goonda
Act, the Government is competent to pass a detention
order for a period of 12 months at a time. If the said
authority is delegated to District Magistrate or
Commissioner of Police under Section 3(2) of Goonda Act,
then only such officers shall not pass the detention order
for a period of more than 3 months at a time. Therefore,
the said contention of the petitioner is not tenable. The
learned advocate for petitioner relied on the order dated
20.12.2023 passed by Co-ordinate Bench in WPHC
No.53/2023 in the case of SMT. SHILPA VS. STATE OF
– 10 –
WPHC No. 97 of 2024
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS. Considering the facts and
circumstances of that case, the Co-ordinate Bench held
that the detention order do not reveal that it was passed
after subjective satisfaction of the authorities. Said view
was based on facts of that case.
11. Learned HCGP relied on following decisions:
i) Smt. K. Aruna Kumari vs. Government of
Andhra Pradesh and others1held that :
“The sufficiency of the materials available
to the detaining authority is not to be
examined by the court. While considering
the writ petition of or on behalf of the
detenu the Supreme Court or the High
Court does not sit in appeal over the
detention order, and it is not for the Court
to go into and assess the probative value of
the evidence available to the detaining
authority”.
ii) Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah vs. State of
Gujarat and Others2held that :
1
(1988) 1 SCC 296
2
(1988) 3 SCC 153
– 11 –
WPHC No. 97 of 2024
“In the present case even though there was
no explanation for the delay between
February 2 and May 28, 1987 it could not
give rise to a legitimate inference that the
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
District Magistrate was not genuine or that
the grounds were stale or illusory or that
there was no rational connection between
the grounds and the impugned order of
detention”.
12. The learned HCGP also relied on the following
judgments:
• Yogendra Murari vs. State of U.P and Ors,
(1988) SCC 599.
• Prabhakar b. Poojari vs. state of Karnataka,
1990 (Supp) SCC 146.
• Susamma Baby vs. state, 2023 SCC Online
Mad 2163
• Aswathy K.A vs. State of Kerala and Ors,
2024 SCC Online Ker 7024.
13. The detaining authority considering materials
placed before them and after subjective satisfaction of the
same passed detention order, we do not find any reasons
to hold that it is illegal or contrary to law. We cannot sit
– 12 –
WPHC No. 97 of 2024
as an appellate Court on the findings of detaining authority
and adjudicate the case, which is not permissible in law as
held in above referred judgments. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
AG