Karnataka High Court
Prakash S/O Beerappa Mudhol vs The Sttate Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
WP No.101894 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.101894 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH S/O BEERAPPA MUDHOL,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE,
R/O MAHANTESH NAGAR, BEHIND BUS DEPOT,
RAMADURGA, DISTRICT BELAGAVI,
NATIVE OF MIRJI VILLAGE, MUDHOL TALUKA,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587 313.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.S. YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME, LAW AND ORDER,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.07.04 10:17:37
AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
+0530
BAGALKOT, DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587 311.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BAGALKOT, DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587 311.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT AND QUASH THE
DETENTION ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
12.12.2024, BEARING NO.HD/586 SST 2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND
ALL CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS
ILLEGAL, VOID AB INITIO & ETC.
WP No.101894 OF 2025
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 24.06.2025, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER',
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning
the detention order dated 12.12.2024 and the extension of
the period of detention by order dated 05.11.2024.
2. The third respondent Superintendent of Police,
Bagalkot submitted a report on 04.11.2024 to the second
respondent-Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate,
Bagalkot stating the grounds for preventive detention of
the petitioner under the provisions of The Karnataka
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (for short
'GOONDA Act'). The second respondent passed an order
of detention on 05.11.2024 ordering arrest and detention
of the petitioner. Further, the first respondent State
Government passed an order on 12.12.2024 extending the
period of detention for a period of one year commencing
from 05.11.2024.
WP No.101894 OF 2025
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier filed
W.P. No. 100146/2025 raising a challenge to the
impugned orders. However, what was contended before
this Court was that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
WPHC No. 100003/2014 and connected matters, which
were decided on 04.09.2014 had opined that u/s 3(2)
proviso of the GOONDA Act, the maximum period for
detention can only be for three months; if certain persons
have been given the benefit of the proposition that
detention orders cannot be beyond three months, the
others who are similarly situated cannot be denied the
benefit; the petitioner's wife has filed a representation, but
the representation has not been considered. However, the
Co-ordinate Bench accepted the submission made on
behalf of the respondent State Government and declined
to grant indulgence to the petitioner. Further, since the
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner sought
to address his arguments, based on a recent decision of
the Apex Court in Ameena Begum Vs. State of
Telangana and Others1, the Co-ordinate Bench held that
(2023) 9 SCC 587
WP No.101894 OF 2025
there were no pleadings in the writ petition to sustain the
arguments. Nevertheless, at the request made by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty to the
petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, subject to the
condition that the three grounds raised in the earlier writ
petition cannot be raised once again.
4. Learned senior counsel Sri S.S. Yadrami, appearing
for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to
the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Ameena
Begum (supra) and submitted that the impugned
detention order cannot be sustained, since the impugned
detention order does not fulfil the requirements, in terms
of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court. It is
contended that the detaining authority received the report
from the Superintendent of Police on 04.11.2024 and
without independently considering the recommendation
and satisfying himself of the existence of tenable grounds
for detention and considering material which have no
rational or probative value or that the material do not
WP No.101894 OF 2025
disclose live and proximate link between the past conduct
of the petitioner and the imperative need to detain the
petitioner, the authority has proceeded to pass the
impugned order. Similarly, the first respondent State
Government has also passed the impugned order on
12.12.2024, extending the period of detention without
satisfying itself of the need to extend the period, without
analyzing the material placed before it.
5. The learned senior counsel submitted that in
Ameena Begum (supra), the Apex Court has directed
that the Constitutional Courts, while considering a
challenge raised to a detention order is required to
consider whether the alleged acts of commission for which
the detenue has been kept under detention are prejudicial
to 'public order' and secondly, whether all relevant
circumstances were considered or whether extraneous
factors weighed in the mind of the detaining authority
leading to the conclusion that detenue is a habitual
offender and for prevention of further crimes by him, he
ought to be detained. It is submitted that the Court is
WP No.101894 OF 2025
directed to distinguish between disturbances related to
'law and order' and disturbances caused to 'public order'.
It was held that breach of law in all cases does not lead to
public disorder and the Apex Court has culled out catena
of judgments which bring out the difference between 'law
and order' and 'public order'. Learned senior counsel
contended that after analyzing several judgments, it was
held that for an act to qualify as a disturbance of public
order, the specific activity must have an impact on the
broader community or the general public, evoking feelings
of fear, panic or insecurity. Not every case of a general
disturbance to public tranquility affects the public order
and the question to be asked, is:
"...Does it (the offending act) lead to disturbance of
the current of life of the community so as to amount
a disturbance of the public order or does it affect
merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the
society undisturbed?"
6. Learned senior counsel would therefore submit that
the detaining authority should have considered the fact
that out of 22 cases registered against the petitioner, the
petitioner is acquitted in three cases, 'B' summary report
WP No.101894 OF 2025
is filed in one case and in another case the parties
compromised and the case was closed. Eight cases were
registered u/Ss 107 or 108 of Cr.P.C. and the same cannot
be considered as crimes and the fact that the bonds
executed by the petitioner in those matters have not been
violated by the petitioner.
7. During the course of the arguments, learned senior
counsel submitted that in one of the cases which was
registered in the year 2016 at Mudhol Police Station in
Case No. 32/2016, the petitioner is acquitted by order
dated 21.06.2025.
8. Learned senior counsel submitted that the detaining
authority was also required to take into consideration the
fact that the petitioner was granted bail in all the pending
matters and there is no allegation of the petitioner
violating conditions of bail. In this regard the learned
senior counsel would place reliance on Joyi Kitty Joseph
Vs. Union of India & Others which was decided on
06.03.2025. It was pointed out that the Apex Court
noticed the earlier decisions in Vijay Narain Singh Vs.
WP No.101894 OF 2025
State of Bihar2 where it was held that care should be
taken that the liberty of the person is not jeopardized
unless his case falls squarely within the hard law of
preventive detention and not to be used merely to clip the
wings of an accused who is involved in a criminal
prosecution. It is not intended for the purpose of keeping
a man under detention when under ordinary criminal law it
may be possible to resist the issue of orders of bail, unless
the material available is such as would satisfy the
requirements of the legal provisions authorizing such
detention. It was held that when a person is enlarged on
bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be
exercised in scrutinizing the validity of an order of
preventive detention which is based on the very same
charge which is to be tried by the criminal court.
9. Attention of this Court was also drawn to another
recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dhanya M
Vs. State of Kerala and others which was decided on
06.06.2025. It was pointed out from the said decision
(1984) 3 SCC 14
WP No.101894 OF 2025
that the Apex Court has opined that it has no doubt that
the order of detention cannot be sustained, since the
detention order does not ascribe any reason as to how the
actions of the detenue are against the public order. Since
it was opined by the detaining authority that the detenue
had violated bail conditions, the Apex Court held that such
violation of bail conditions may be ground enough for the
State to approach the competent courts for cancellation of
bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his
preventive detention.
10. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, appearing
for the respondents submitted that the impugned
detention order complies with all the requirements as
directed in Ameena Begum (supra). It is submitted that
the detaining authority has listed out all the 22 cases
which were registered against the petitioner. The
detaining authority has considered the fact that the
petitioner has been acquitted in some cases, in one of the
case the matter was compromised and in another case a
'B' summary report was filed. The detaining authority has
- 10 -
WP No.101894 OF 2025
also taken note of the fact that bail have been granted to
the petitioner in all the other pending cases. However the
detaining authority has clearly noticed the fact that despite
crimes being registered against the petitioner continuously
from the year 2009 and he obtaining bail in all the pending
matters, nevertheless, the petitioner has continued with
illegal activities and he has continued hooligan behaviour,
instilling fear in the mind of the public. The detaining
authority has noticed the recent past activity of the
petitioner wherein he is involved in impersonation and
extorted huge sums of money from two pontiffs and a
general manager of a cement factory. This shows the live
and proximate link between the immediate past conduct of
the petitioner and the imperative need to detain him under
preventive law. The detaining authority has furnished
sufficient reason for apprehension and detention of the
petitioner since the immediate past activities of the
petitioner, in the form of extortion from various persons
have instilled fear in the mind of the public.
- 11 -
WP No.101894 OF 2025
11. Learned Government Advocate submitted that in the
case of Commissioner of Police & Others Vs. C.Anita
(Smt.)3 the Apex Court has held that the Court cannot
substitute its own opinion for that of the detaining
authority when the grounds of detention are precise,
pertinent, proximate and relevant. It was noticed in that
case that the detenue was a history sheeter against whom
more than 30 cases were registered, he demanded money
from whosoever purchased land in the area concerned and
threatened to kill if demands were not met. Such
incidents clearly substantiated the subjective satisfaction
arrived at by the detaining authority as to how the acts of
the detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of the
public order.
12. Learned Government Advocate also placed reliance
on Pesala Nookaraju Vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh and Others4, where it was held that the power
of preventive detention is qualitatively different from
(2004) 7 SCC 467
(2023) 14 SCC 641
- 12 -
WP No.101894 OF 2025
punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a
precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation.
It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel
proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution even if it
relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be
launched or may have been launched. An order of
preventive detention, may be made before or during
prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be
made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or
after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of
prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention.
13. Learned Government Advocate submitted that in
Joyi Kitty Joseph the Apex Court was concerned with the
allegations against the detenue who was involved in
smuggling activities. The Apex Court found that the
detenue was in judicial custody till 19.03.2024 and an
extension was subsequently granted till 01.04.2024 and
thereafter till 15.04.2024. The bail application filed by the
detenue was considered and the detenue was released on
16.04.2024 on certain conditions. The apprehension of
- 13 -
WP No.101894 OF 2025
the prosecution of the involvement of the detenue in
similar type of smuggling activity was reckoned by the
jurisdictional magistrate while granting bail and imposing
conditions to prevent the detenue from engaging in such
smuggling activities. The Apex Court found that nothing is
stated by the detaining authority as to why the bail
conditions are not sufficient to prevent the detenue from
engaging in further activities of smuggling, which was the
specific ground on which the conditions were imposed
while granting bail. It was under those circumstances the
Apex Court held that the detaining authority ought to have
examined whether the bail conditions were sufficient to
curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities,
which is the very basis of the preventive detention
ordered. The detention order being silent on that aspect,
the Apex Court interfered with the detention order only on
the ground of the detaining authority having not looked
into the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while
granting bail for the very same offence: the allegations
which formed the basis of the detention order. This does
not mean that the Apex Court has laid down a law that the
- 14 -
WP No.101894 OF 2025
detaining authority is required to consider the fact that bail
has been granted to the detenue in all the pending cases
or that since bail has been granted to the detenue, such
cases should not be taken into consideration while passing
a detention order.
14. On the other hand, a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, in the case of Smt. Nandini vs. The DG & IGP of
Police, Bengaluru & Others5 considered similar such
contentions and held as follows:
g) The last contention of the Petitioner's counsel that in
all the pending matters, the detenue has been admitted to bail
subject to complying with conditions and there is no complaint
of violation of bail conditions and therefore the Detention Order
is not explicable, appears to be too farfetched an argument. As
already mentioned above, the criminal antecedents of the
detenue abound on record. The number of criminal cases, the
nature of criminality, the kind of victims chosen by the detenue
all would leave no reasonable mind unbaffled. Admittedly he is
a Rowdy Sheeter. None other than his first was
kidnapped/abducted by him. He is facing a plethora of criminal
cases, is not in dispute. Due to mounting arrears, the
investigation/trial/disposal of criminal cases would take years if
not decades. Such has become the Administration of Criminal
Justice. Less said is better. Ordinarily, for offences for which
prescribed punishment is not death, nor life imprisonment,
WPHC No.55/2024 dated 12.07.2024
- 15 -
WP No.101894 OF 2025
offenders secure bail by raising the slogan "bail is a rule and
jail is an exception" vide STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. BALCHAND
@ BALIAY, AIR 1977 SC 2447. Social conditions have
undergone catastrophic change and people are living in
different times. The principles & maxims of law are not
immutable; they have elements of relativity; their relevance is
'time & circumstance bound'. Therefore, the same cannot be
invoked mindlessly for granting reprieve disregarding its
consequences on the larger interest of the community.
15. Heard learned senior counsel Sri S.S. Yadrami for the
petitioner, learned Government Advocate Sri G.K.
Hiregoudar for the respondent-State and its authorities
and perused the petition papers.
16. From the conspectus of arguments submitted at the
bar, we are required to consider whether the impugned
detention order is in conformity with the yardsticks laid
down by the Apex Court in Ameena Begum (supra);
whether the alleged acts of commission for which the
detenue has been kept under detention are prejudicial to
'public order'; whether the impugned detention order is
liable to be set aside on the ground that the detaining
authority has not taken into consideration bail granted by
- 16 -
WP No.101894 OF 2025
the jurisdictional Magistrates / competent Court in the
pending cases registered against the detenue?
17. In Pesala Nookaraju (supra), while answering the
question as to whether the activities of the detenue were
prejudicial to public order, it was held that just because
four cases have been registered against the detenue under
the Prohibition Act, by itself, may not have any bearing on
the maintenance of public order. If the detention is on the
ground that the detenue is indulging in manufacture or
transport or sale of liquor then that by itself would not
become an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order, because the same can be effectively dealt with
under the provisions of the Prohibition Act. But it becomes
an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order if
the liquor sold by the detenue is dangerous to public
health; it becomes an activity prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. For that purpose the
detaining authority was required to be satisfied on
material available to it that the liquor dealt with by the
detenue is liquor which is dangerous to public health. The
- 17 -
WP No.101894 OF 2025
Apex Court, under such circumstances held that the
detaining authority has specifically stated in the grounds
of detention that selling liquor by the detenue and the
consumption by the people of that locality was harmful to
their health. Such statement is an expression of the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the
activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order. The Apex Court was satisfied that the
detaining authority not only recorded its satisfaction that it
is necessary to prevent the detenue-appellant from
indulging further in such activities and the satisfaction was
drawn on the basis of credible material available on
record. It was also held that it is well settled that whether
the material was sufficient or not is not for the Courts to
decide by applying the objective basis as it is matter of
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
18. Applying the test laid down by the Apex Court, in
Pesala Nookaraju (supra) and Ameena Begum (supra),
when we look into the impugned detention order, we find
that the detaining authority has recorded the fact that the
- 18 -
WP No.101894 OF 2025
detenue is in the habit of committing offences which
commenced from the year 2009 and on 12.06.2017 a
Rowdysheet and M.O.B. card is opened against the
detenue. The detenue is involved in criminal cases
continuously for the last 4-5 years. What is noticeable is
that the detenue is involved in three cases of extortion in
the year 2021 to 2024. In Crime No. 37/2021 registered
at Lokapur Police Station, the detenue is alleged to have
impersonated a personal secretary of a Minister and
attempted extortion. In Crime No. 32/2021 registered at
Bagalkot Police Station, the detenue once again
impersonated a private secretary of another Minister and
sought to extort money from a General Manager of a
cement industry. In Crime No. 33/2024 registered at
Bagalkot CEN Police Station, the detenue extorted Rs.1
crore from a pontiff of a Mutt. The detaining authority has
recorded its satisfaction from the material available, that
despite the detenue being released on bail, instead of
developing good behavior, he engaged in various illegal
activities and even though legal action was taken against
him, he continued his hooligan behavior without any fear.
- 19 -
WP No.101894 OF 2025
It is clear that the detenue is not one who will abide by the
law and he continues with unlawful or illegal activities like
extortion, cheating, rioting, threatening and due to such
activities, common people are highly affected. Activities
such as, extortion of businessmen and pontiffs has spread
fear in the mind of the public.
19. In the considered opinion of this Court, the detaining
authority has recorded its subjective satisfaction, applied
its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not
based on extraneous material. The detaining authority
has acted independently and the satisfaction rests on
material which have rational, probative value and the
detaining authority has given due regard to the matter, as
per the statutory mandate. There exists live and
proximate link between the immediate past conduct of the
detenue and therefore the detaining authority is right in
coming to a conclusion that there is an imperative need to
detain the detenue under the preventive law.
20. Insofar as the arguments of the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the
- 20 -
WP No.101894 OF 2025
detaining authority was required to take into consideration
bail granted by the competent Criminal Court in all the
pending matters, this Court is in respectful agreement of
the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench in Smt. Nandini
(supra). The relevant paragraphs have already been
extracted hereinabove. The detaining authority has not
only taken into consideration the bail granted to the
detenue, but it has also expressed its anguish that despite
bail being granted to the detenue, it has not stopped the
detenue from committing heinous offences such as
extortion which has created fear in the minds of the public.
21. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered
opinion that the impugned detention order cannot be
faulted. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
bvv/CT: VP
