Sri Parashuram S/O Venkappa Ballary Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ANY SUCH WRIT OR DIRECTION TO DECLARE THAT THE IMPUGNED DETENTION ORDER DATED 03.06.2025 OF SRI.LAXMANNA URF GABYA S/O. PARASHURAM BALLARY, AGED 30 YEARS, BEARING NO.CP/MAG-2/HD/12/ 2025-26 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOTLEGGERS, DRUG OFFENDERS, GAMBLERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDERS AND SLUM GRABBERS ACT R/W SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 3 AND ADVISORY BOARD CONFIRMATION ORDER NO.HD/296/SST/ 2025 DATED 11.06.2025 AT ANNEXURE-H, FOLLOWED BY THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.HD/296/SST/2025 DATED 18.07.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-K AS ILLEGAL AND VOID ABINTIO AND QUASH THE SAME AND ETC.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINAY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

¶29

AND

¶30

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17392-DB WP No. 108440 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

¶36

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of

¶37

the Constitution of India at the hands of the father of the detenue, raising a challenge to the impugned order of detention at Annexure-G dated 03.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Commissioner Of Police And Additional District Magistrate, Hubballi-Dharwad City invoking the provisions contained in

¶38

The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘ GOONDA Act ’).

¶39

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶40

specific grounds have been raised in the writ petition stating that even in terms of the detention order, the last of the crime registered against the detenue is dated 10.11.2024 in

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17392-DB WP No. 108440 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

crime No.135/2024 at Bendigeri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 132, 109, 351(2), 351(3) r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. Therefore, there is no live link between the previous conduct of the detenue and the reason for taking drastic step detaining the detenue

¶44

under the provisions of the GOONDA Act, which is a preventive detention law. Moreover, it is stated that the recent crime registered against the detenue did not fall under the category of ‘disturbing public order’. Learned counsel submits that the detaining authority has taken into consideration 13 cases, out of which detenue was acquitted in six cases. In two cases arising out of the provisions of the Karnataka Police Act, the detenue has pleaded guilty and paid fine of the Rs.200/-. Out of five pending cases, four cases are under trial and last in the series is crime No.135/2024, which is under investigation. Learned counsel submits that when the plain reading of the crime registered against the detenue in crime No.135/2024 clearly shows that on 10.11.2024 midnight at about 1.30 a.m., the

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17392-DB WP No. 108440 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

detenue along with few other persons came on a motorbike brandishing sharp weapons shouting that he has been illegally externed from the limits of Hubballi Taluk. Learned counsel submits that all the persons named as witnesses therein are police personnel and there is no independent witnesses. Moreover, the crime was registered on 10.11.2024 and no recovery has been made till date. On the same lines, it is submitted that if the incident had taken place on 10.11.2024, there was sufficient time for the respondent-police to take action against the detenue for violating the externment order, but no such action has been taken till date. On the other hand, seven months after the incident, the order of detention has been passed against the detenue. This clearly shows that respondent-police have acted in a manner detriment to the interest of the detenue and there being no grounds for taking action under the ‘preventive detention law’, the impugned detention order is required to be set aside.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17392-DB WP No. 108440 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Moreover, it is submitted that the documents

¶51

running to nearly 500 pages were relied upon by the detaining authority for the purpose of passing the impugned order and many of the pages including pages at 161 to 163, 299, 523, 293 and 294 are illegible. Learned counsel submits that this court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that clear translated copies of all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority should be furnished to the detenue for the purpose of enabling him to give representation to the detaining authority. Failure on the part of the detaining authority to supply clear translated copies would be sufficient to set aside the detention order. Learned counsel submits that this court in a recent decision in W.P.No.108482/2025, pronounced a judgment today relying upon a decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Smt.Jayamma Vs. Commissioner of Police,

¶52

Bengaluru¹ , where guidelines were issued by this court to enable the stakeholders to take note the requirement of

¶53

1 ILR 2019 KAR 1543

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17392-DB WP No. 108440 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

law, such as, supplying clear translated copies to the detenue. Learned counsel submits that for violation of such requirements, this court has set aside the detention order taking note of the earlier such orders passed by this court in in Smt.R.Ramya Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.² and Smt.Shruti T.K. Vs. Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Davanagere & Ors.³ . Learned counsel therefore prays that the impugned detention order is required to be set aside.

¶57

Per contra, learned HCGP submits that in the statement of objections filed at the hands of the respondents, it is stated that despite the detenue being involved in several series crimes, immediately after obtaining bail, the detenue has continued with such illegal activities and by his hooligan behaviour, he has created fear in the minds of the general public. Further, despite externment orders passed against the detenue, the detenue

¶58

2 WPHC No. 51/2022 dated 26.08.2022

¶59

3 WPHC No. 39/2023 dated 18.07.2023

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17392-DB WP No. 108440 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

has violated externment orders and has continued with his hooligan behaviour, and it has become extremely difficult for the police to constrain the detenue. Therefore, it is inevitable for the detaining authority to take action under the provisions of the ‘preventive detention law’, such as,

¶63

GOONDA Act.

¶64

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondents and on perusing the petition papers, this court finds that a plain reading of the detention order and the crime registered against the detenue which are taken into consideration by the detaining authority, does not reflect a close proximity or live link for immediately past conduct of the detenue which require such drastic action. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, out of 13 cases registered against the detenue, the detenue has been acquitted in six cases. In two cases, the detenue pleaded guilty and paid fine of Rs.200/- and the crimes were registered under the Karnataka Police Act. The other four cases are pending, and

¶65

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17392-DB WP No. 108440 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

the last case registered against the detenue is in crime No.135/2024 at Bendigeri Police Station, which was registered on 10.11.2024. The contents of FIR which has been extracted in the detention order shows that the allegation against the detenue is that on 10.11.2024, in the midnight at about 1.30 a.m., the detenue along with few other persons came on a motorbike brandishing sharp weapons shouting that he was illegally externed from the jurisdiction of Hubballi for no fault of his. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if there was a violation of externment order at the hands of the detenue, action could have been taken against the detenue immediately for violation of the externment order. No such action has been taken till date. On the other hand, seven months after the incident, the impugned detention order has been passed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that there is no live link between the detention order and the immediately past conduct of the detenue which require such drastic measure.

¶68

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17392-DB WP No. 108440 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Moreover, if the incident has occurred in the midnight at about 1.30 a.m., and only the police were on the streets, then it is difficult to say that such conduct would come within the folds of ‘disturbing public order’.

¶71

Moreover, furnishing illegible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority would be sufficient to set aside the detention order having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of in the case of State of Manipur & Ors. Vs. Buyamayum

¶72

Abdul Hannan @ Anand & Another⁴ .

¶73

For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶76

4 (2022) SCC Online SC 1455

¶77

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17392-DB WP No. 108440 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

ii) The impugned detention order at Annexure-G dated 03.06.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶80

iii) The consequential orders at Annexures-H and K are also quashed and set aside.

¶81

iv) The 6^th respondent Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Ballary is hereby directed to immediately release the detenue Sri Laxman @ Gabya s/o Parashuram Ballary from detention.

¶82

Ordered accordingly.

¶83

Sd/(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE

¶86

MBS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri Parashuram S/O Venkappa Ballary v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Parashuram S/O Venkappa Ballary v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallavva W/O Honkerappa Halavagal Vs Smt. Puttavva Alias Gangamalavva W/O Malleshappa Beeral

Kumar.Siddanagouda S/O. Songanagouda Patil Vs Smt.Ratnavva W/O. Somanagouda Patil

Kashimsab S/O Husensab Nadaf Vs Maktumbi W/O Pachesab Nadaf

K Channamma D/O B Kumargowda W/O K Nagaraj Vs B. Kamalamma W/O Kumargouda

Anand S/O Narayan Somanche Vs Padmaraj S/O Tavanappa Patil

Smt Prathiba Talapati W/O Davood Nadaf Vs State of Karnataka