Smt Mubeena Banu Vs State of Karnataka

SMT. MUBEENA BANU W/O LATE SHABEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.214, SRINAGAR BEHIND JAIL ROAD HASSAN CITY, HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN 573 201 (MOTHER OF THE DETENU - ACCUSED NO.1)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SYED AMEER, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by RAKSHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶17

HOME DEPARTMENT

¶18

VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001

¶19

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN 573 201

¶20

STATION HOUSE OFFICER HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN 573 201

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:16216-DB WPHC No. 27 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

STATION HOUSE OFFICER UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT

¶25

MYSURU 570 019

¶26

KESHAVA PRASAD

¶27

SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶28

HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT

¶29

HASSAN 573 201

¶30

SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL DISTRICT PRISON, HASSAN HASSAN 573 201

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. B.A.BELLIAPPA, SPP-1 A/W SRI. P. THEJESH, HCGP)

¶33

THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PRODUCE THE DETENUE BEFORE THIS COURT AND SET THE THEM AT LIBERTY BY DECLARING THIRE DETENTION IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.0030/2026 OF HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION AS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

¶34

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶36

3 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:16216-DB WPHC No. 27 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶41

This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶42

” 1. Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenue before this Hon'ble Court and set the them at liberty, by declaring thire detention in connection with Crime No.0030/2026 of Hassan City Police Station as illegal and unconstitutional.

¶43

2. Direct CCTV footage Storage of the respondent No.3 Hassan Police Station from 01.02.2026 to 03.02.2026 and respondent No.4 Udayagiri Police station from 31.01.2026 to 01.02.2026 to kept store and produced before this Hon'ble Court and furnished one pen drive to the accused persons enable the accused Persons to conduct fair trail along with independent enquiry into the illegal detention and custodial torture of the detenue.

¶44

3. Direct the State Government to pay compensation of not less than Rs.25,00,000(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) to the detenue for the violation of their

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16216-DB WPHC No. 27 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

fundamental rights and the custodial torture inflicted upon them, apart from such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice."

¶48

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner as well as the State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶49

It is contended in the writ petition that the writ petitioner's son had been taken into custody illegally without any crime having been registered against him on 31.01.2026 at midnight. It is contended that a crime has been registered only on 03.02.2026. However, it is submitted that the detenue has now been produced before the Magistrate and is continuing in custody in the criminal case.

¶50

The learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submits that there are several criminal cases pending against the detenue as well as the writ petitioner herein and that the detenue is in judicial custody from 03.02.2026, in connection with Crime No.0030/2026 of the Hassan City Police Station.

¶51

5 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:16216-DB WPHC No. 27 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Having considered the contentions advanced, we

¶55

notice that the contention in the writ petition itself is that the detenue is presently in custody, in connection with a crime. The contention raised is that the detenue had been kept under illegal detention from 01.02.2026 to 03.02.2026.

¶56

In view of the fact that presently the detenue is in Judicial custody in connection with a crime, we are of the opinion that the Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be sought for seeking production of a person who is admittedly in Judicial custody in connection with a crime. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the writ petitioner and the right of the detenue to move appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law.

¶57

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶58

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶59

RAK; List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Smt Mubeena Banu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mubeena Banu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sathya Pal Vs Sri B a Krishne Gowda

M/S. Guru Nikhara Finance Corporation (R) Vs Sri. Ramamurthy G

Major a Suhel Khan Vs Shri.Sanjay Mitra

Sri. Srinivasa. G Vs Smt. Satyavathi

Amemar Abdul Razak Vs Sri a Srinivas Rao

Smt. Manjula Vs the Additional Land Acquisition