Karnataka High Court
Smt Likitha R vs State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.P.H.C. NO. 114 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. LIKITHA R
W/O MANJUNATHA K
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT NO.296/A, AYYAPPA LAYOUT
DASARAHALLY
BEHIND BBMP OFFICE
BANGALORE NORTH
H.A.FARM
BANGALORE-560 024 ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. H.C. HARISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
LAW AND ORDER DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALORE CITY
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT
BANGALORE CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP)
2
THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE
OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DECLARE THE DETENTION OF THE
DETENUE NAMED MANJUNATH K. @ MOLA MANJA BY ORDER BEARING
NO.11/CRM(4)/DTN/2023, DATED 21.09.2023 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, GOVERNMENT SANCTION NO.
HD 446 SST 2023, BENGALURU DATED 29.09.2023 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND
THE SET THE DETENUE AT LIBERTY AND ETC.
THIS WP(HC) HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 19.04.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of habeas
corpus in respect of Shri. Manjunath K. @ Mola Manja
S/o. Kumar, who is detained in the Bangalore Central Prison,
Parappana Agrahara, in pursuance of an order of detention
issued under Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders,
Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-
Grabbers Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') -
Annexure 'A', detention order passed by the second
respondent - Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru dated
21.09.2023. (It's true English translation being produced as
Annexure 'B'). The order of detention was confirmed by the
Government vide Order dated 29.09.2023 at Annexure 'C'.
2. We have heard Shri. H.C. Harish Kumar,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Shri.
M.V. Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents.
3. The wife of the detenue is the petitioner before
us. Though several grounds are urged in the writ petition,
at the time of hearing of the writ petition, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner limited his contention to
the sole ground, which according to him vitiates the
preventive detention of the petitioner's husband. It is
contended that, the preventive detention order is passed on
the basis of certain criminal cases registered against the
detenue and also brings to the notice that out of seven
criminal cases, in one case the detenue is acquitted and
another case is compromised.
4. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana1, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that where the
detenue is released on bail, if the detenue is found involved
in further crimes, the prosecution can appraise the Court
concerned for cancellation of bail. As detenue has allegedly
committed the offences punishable under IPC, the said
crimes can be effectively dealt under the provisions of IPC &
Cr.P.C. The detaining authority cannot be permitted to
subvert, supplant or substitute the punitive law of land, by
ready resort to preventive detention.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contends
that the grounds raised in the writ petition against the order
of detention are absolutely untenable and all the legal
formalities that are required to be complied with have been
complied with, in full, by the respondents in the instant
case. With regard to the specific grounds urged by the
learned counsel, the learned High Court Government Pleader
(2023) 9 SCC 587
contends that an order to prevent the detenue from
indulging in criminal and rowdy activities, a deportation
order was passed by the Special Executive Magistrate and
Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-East Division vide
order dated 11.05.2022 from Bangalore City to Bangalore
District for a period of one year with effect from 18.05.2022
to 17.05.2023. The order was executed. During that period,
on 18.04.2023, the detenue entered into city limits and
committed an offence which is registered as
Crime.No.93/2023. Hence, it is clear that the detenue has
willfully violated the deportation order.
6. We have considered the contentions advanced on
either side, we have also perused the judgments relied on
by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
pleadings of the parties and the materials placed on record
by the respondents.
7. In the judgment of the Apex Court in Ameena
Begum's case (supra), which was relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it has been held that though
circumstances may make it necessary for ordering
preventive detention without trial but it would be perfectly
legitimate to require observance of applicable statutory
provision and rules in such a case. In the present case on
perusing the records it is clear all the statutory provisions
are complied.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Alijan Mian v.
District Magistrate, Dhanbad and Others2 has held as
follows:
"....., it may be pointed out that preventive
detention is an anticipatory measure and does not
relate to an offence while the criminal proceedings
are to punish a person for an offence committed by
him. They are not parallel proceedings. In the
circumstances the pendency of a criminal
prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive
detention, nor is an order of preventive detention a
bar to prosecution. It is for the detaining authority
to have the subjective satisfaction whether in such a
case there are sufficient materials to place the
person under preventive detention in order to
prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to
public order or the like in future."
(1983) 4 SCC 301
9. Having considered the contentions advanced and
having gone through the judgments, we notice that the Act
was enacted with an object to ensure that the maintenance
of public order in the State is not adversely affected by the
activities of known anti-social elements. The legislature also
took note of the fact while enacting the Act that the
activities of antisocial elements like bootleggers, drug
offenders, gamblers, immoral traffic offenders and slum
grabbers and also video and audio pirates, have caused a
feeling of insecurity among the public and even tempo of life
especially in urban areas has frequently been disrupted
because of such persons. Section 2(g) of the Act defines the
expression 'goonda' who either by himself or as a member
of a leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to
commit or abets the commission of offences punishable
(under Chapter VIII, Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII
or Chapter XXII) of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act XLV
of 1860).
10. In the instant case, the detenue has committed the
offences punishable under Chapter VIII, XV and XVI of IPC.
It is well settled in law that preventive detention is not
punitive but it is a precautionary measure and its object is
not to punish a person but to prevent him from doing any
illegal activity which may be prejudicial to maintenance of
public order. The power of preventive detention is invoked
as an anticipatory measure and the same does not relate to
an offence in respect of which criminal proceeding is pending
to punish a person for the offence committed by him. It is
equally well settled legal proposition that action of the
authority in detaining a person being only precautionary, the
matter has to be necessarily left to the discretion of the
authority. However, since preventive detention essentially
deals with curtailment of person's liberty, therefore, the
procedural safeguards laid down by the statute have to be
strictly complied with. In the case on hand the procedures
have been strictly complied, and even the petitioner has not
raised any contention regarding the falsity in the procedure.
11. In the instant case, a perusal of Annexure - R2(a)
and R2(b), containing the grounds of detention reveals that
the detenue and his associates were moving in public places
with machetes, knife and other lethal weapons creating fear
in the minds of law abiding citizens. It states that he has
committed offences like assault, murder, attempt to murder,
house trespass, forming unlawful assembly, rioting with
deadly weapon, criminal force intending to outrage the
modesty of women and disturbed public peace and
tranquility. It also refers to registration of a number of
criminal cases against the detenue and criminal case
culminating in the acquittal of the detenue. The continued,
relentless activities of the detenue are such that it cannot be
said that there is no nexus between the criminal cases
registered and the passing of the impugned orders. In the
matter of preventive detention, it is held that the detention
order is not vitiated on the ground of non-application of
mind, if subjective satisfaction is arrived at on the basis of
other independent and objective factors enumerated in the
grounds.
12. Another contention raised by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the crimes
alleged against the detenue are individual in nature which
pertains to law and order and none affect the public order as
mandate to the Act. Upon perusing the records and looking
into the FIR produced at Annexures R4 - R10, it is clear that
the detenue has committed the offence punishable under
Chapter VIII, XV and XVI of IPC. We would rely on a
judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhupendra v. State of
Maharashtra and another 3, the Apex Court has held that:
"........The distinction between the areas of `law
and order' and `public order' is one of the degree
and extent of the reach of the act in question on
society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the
even tempo of life of the community which makes it
prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If
a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few
individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide
spectrum of public, it could raise problem of law and
order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity
of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption
of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act
affecting `public order' from that concerning `law
and order'."...........
13. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the grounds raised in challenge of the order of
(2008)17 SCC 165
detention are devoid of merits. The writ petition therefore
fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CP*
