The detaining authority has mentioned that the
date of grant of bail in Cr. No.30/2024 as
13.06.2024. The Learned District and Sessions
Judge has rejected the bail application of the
detenue in Crl. Misc. No.493/2024 and thereafter
has granted bail to the detenue in Cr. No.30/2024
in Crl. Misc. No.706/2024 on 17.08.2024.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the writ
• Sri. Shivakumar A v. The State of Karnataka &
Ors, passed in WPHC No.111/2024 by Order
dated 01.02.2025;
• Sri. Anil Kumar V. v. Commissioner of Police &
Ors, passed in WPHC No.4/2025 by Order dated
28.02.2025;
• Annu @ Aniket through his Father as next
friend Krupal Singh Thakur v. Union of India &
Ors, passed in Crl. Appeal No.2920/2025 by
Order dated 27.06.2025;
• Roshini Devi v. The State of Telangana & Ors.,
passed in Crl. Appeal No.18223/2025 by Order
dated 08.01.2026;
• Mohd Jaffer Sheikh v. Union Territory of J & K
& Ors, reported in 2025:JKLHC-JMU:276;
• Jitendra Nath Mishra v. Dist. Magistrate & Ors,
reported in (2004) All.LJ 1829;
• Amreen v. Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru
& Ors, passed in WPHC No.87/2025 by Order
dated 23.10.2025;
• Suresh B. Shetty v. State of Karnataka, by its
Secretary, reported in (2019) 1 Kant.LJ 552;
• G. Jyothi v. State of Telangana, reported in
(2017) 3 ALT 585;
• Shamas Din v. UT of J&K and Ors, passed in
HCP No.62/2025 by order dated 01.09.2025;
and
• Sri Narendra Gopal Gowda A. N. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors, passed in WPHC
No.110/2025 by order dated 24.02.2026;
6. The learned State Public Prosecutor-1 appearing
for the respondents has placed a detailed statement of
objections on record. It is contended that the petitioner's
brother Vijaya Varman @ Sunoj is a habitual offender
involved in 14 criminal cases, including murder, attempt to
murder, robbery, rioting, hurt, and house-breaking
registered across multiple police stations. His conduct is
posing a continuing threat to public order with a tendency to
use violence, deadly weapons and intimidation for unlawful
gain. The consolidated statement of the criminal cases
registered against the detenue is given below:-
SL. Police Sections of Law Short Description Stage /
No Station & (IPC/BNS) of Incident Status
Crime No
1 Andersonpet 143, 147, 148, Alleged Acquitted on
PS 191/2017 302, 201, 202, involvement with a 16.04.2019
120B, 149 IPC group in a murder
case and
destruction of
evidence
2 Andersonpet 506, 504, 323, Assaulted victims Acquitted on
PS 21/2022 324, 34 IPC with weapons 12.12.2023
during a quarrel,
causing simple
injuries
3 Andersonpet 323, 324, 143, Gang assault Pending Trial
PS 118/2022 427, 504, 506, causing injuries and (CC
144, 147, 201, property damage; 5359/2024)
149 IPC intimidation of
complainant
4 Andersonpet 309(4), 60 BNS- Involved in a Pending Trial
PS 104/2024 2023 violent altercation (PT in CC
leading to serious 840/2025)
hurt under BNS
provisions
5 Andersonpet 129(e), 129(g) Habitual rowdy Bound Over
PS 280/2024 BNSS-2023 behaviour; bound (MAG Cr. No.
over due to 250/2024)
repeated
disturbances to
public order
6 Marikuppam 392 IPC Robbery case Acquitted on
PS 23/2017 involving snatching 22.11.2023
of valuables using
force
7 Champion 341, 323, 324, Attacked victim Acquitted on
Reef PS 506, 307, 34 IPC with deadly 23.03.2019
97/2018 weapons; attempt
to murder alleged
8 Champion 323, 324, 34 IPC Assault causing Acquitted on
Reef PS simple injuries 13.12.2023
35/2019 during a group
clash
9 Robertsonpet 454, 457, 380 House-breaking at Acquitted on
PS 216/2018 IPC night and theft of 05.12.2022
valuables
10 Oorgaum PS 323, 324, 504, Assault and verbal Acquitted on
26/2022 34 IPC abuse during a 04.10.2023
personal rivalry
incident
11 Oorgaum PS 427, 341, 506 Wrongful restraint Acquitted on
48/2022 IPC and property 05.09.2023
damage, issued
threats to victim
12 Oorgaum PS 143, 144, 147, Group attack Acquitted on
07/2023 148, 504, 307, resulting in fatal 06.04.2024
302, 201, 149 injuries; alleged
IPC murder and
destruction of
evidence
13 Oorgaum PS 504, 143, 144, Violent group clash Pending Trial
30/2024 147, 148, 149, with attempt to
323, 307 IPC murder; caused
injuries with
weapons
14 Oorgaum PS 189(2), 189(4), Threatened public Pending Trial
54/2024 191(2), 191(3), with weapons,
324(4), 352, , caused hurt,
109, 190 BNS- instigated group
2023 violence
7. It is further submitted that Rowdy Sheets were
opened against the detenue at Andersonpet Police Station
on 08.09.2020 and Oorgaum Police Station on 06.03.2024
and he has been under continuous surveillance. Despite
repeated arrests, periods of judicial custody and release on
bail, he is alleged to have shown no signs of reform and to
have persistently engaged in violent and anti-social conduct.
The ordinary criminal law has been ineffective in curbing the
activities of the detenue making preventive detention
necessary under Section 8 of the 1985 Act. Based on the
materials and recommendations from the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate, Kolar
recorded satisfaction that the detenue is a 'Goonda' as
defined under Section 2(g) of the 1985 Act. A Detention
Order was passed on 02.07.2025 and was communicated to
the detenue on the same day. The detenue was informed of
the grounds of detention and his rights to make
representations to the Detaining Authority, the State
Government and the Advisory Board. He was also informed
of his right to appear before the Advisory Board and be
heard in person or through a non-legal representative.
8. On 10.07.2025, the State Government approved
the Detention Order and the approval was communicated to
the detenue. On 14.07.2025, the Detention Order, grounds
of detention, and relied upon documents were forwarded to
the Chairman of the Advisory Board, Bengaluru. On the
same day, the detenue submitted representations to
respondent No.2 and the Advisory Board. On 18.07.2025,
the representation of the detenue was placed before the
Advisory Board. The representation submitted by the
detenue was also considered and rejected by the State
Government and the rejection of the representation was
communicated to the detenue on 21.07.2025. Thereafter, on
04.08.2025, the Advisory Board held its meeting and on
14.08.2025, it submitted a report along with proceedings
dated 04.08.2025 to the State Government. Based on the
said report, the State Government, by Order dated
16.08.2025, confirmed the Detention Order for a period of
one year from 02.07.2025. The confirmation order was
communicated to the detenue on 18.08.2025.
9. Further, as regards the grounds raised by the writ
petitioner, it is contended that the last incident dated
18.11.2024 involved an unlawful assembly armed with
deadly weapons with intent to commit murder, thereby
affecting public order. Despite securing bail on 03.06.2025,
the detenue continued to pose an imminent threat to
society, warranting preventive detention. The detention
order dated 02.07.2025 was issued within a reasonable and
proximate timeframe, considering the detenue's consistent
criminal propensity and likelihood of reoffending. The
detention is based on a pattern of habitual criminal conduct
and its cumulative impact, not on an isolated incident and
thus does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India
or suffer from non-application of mind.
10. It is further contended that the petitioner's
attempt to trivialize the detenue's actions as mere law and
order issues is contrary to both the record and settled law.
The detenue has repeatedly engaged in serious and violent
offences thereby creating fear and disturbing public order.
The grounds of detention indicate that victims and witnesses
have been reluctant to come forward due to fear of
retaliation. The grant of bail does not diminish the gravity of
the offences or limit the State's authority to invoke
preventive detention where ordinary criminal law has proven
ineffective. The recurring pattern of violent conduct,
particularly following release on bail, justifies the invocation
of the 1985 Act to safeguard public order.
11. The allegation that the detenue was not informed
of his right to make a representation or the procedure is
factually incorrect. The grounds of detention clearly
communicated his right to submit representations to the
detaining authority, the State Government and the Advisory
Board through the Superintendent of Central Prison,
Bengaluru. He was also informed that the matter would be
placed before the Advisory Board within the statutory period
under Section 9 of the 1985 Act. As Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India only requires communication of the
right to make a representation and not a fixed time frame in
the grounds and hence no constitutional violation arises.
12. It is further contended that all material
documents relied upon by the detaining authority for
arriving at subjective satisfaction were furnished to the
detenue, including records of criminal cases, bail status, and
police reports, as part of the grounds of detention. This
ensured that the detenue could make an effective
representation. The claim of non-supply of documents is
vague, unsupported by particulars and raised only as an
afterthought. As no prejudice has been shown, the
contention is untenable and liable to be rejected.
13. It if further contended that the confirmation order
dated 09.10.2025 was issued in strict compliance with
Section 12 of the 1985 Act, following the Advisory Board's
opinion under Section 9 of the 1985 Act that sufficient cause
for detention existed. The law does not require the
confirmation order to reproduce the detailed reasoning of
the Advisory Board. It is sufficient that the Government
considers the report and arrives at its satisfaction.
14. It is further contended that the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority is clearly established
through a detailed narration of facts, verification of police
records and consideration of the detenue's criminal
antecedents. The detention order demonstrates that the
activities of the detenue go beyond individual disputes and
have a direct impact on public order, thereby, satisfying the
statutory requirements.
15. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that the contention raised with regard to lack of
proximity of the order of detention to the last prejudicial
activity, is not valid in the instant case since the detenue
was admittedly in judicial custody in the last case till
03.06.2025. There are four crimes pending trial against the
detenue. The detaining authority has considered the nature
of the offences as well as the preventive steps under the
criminal law taken against the detenue and has come to the
conclusion that such steps are not sufficient to restrain the
criminal activities of the detenue. It has also been
considered that in view of his past conduct, there is every
likelihood of the detenue engaging in further crimes
threatening public order and that the preventive detention is
essential. In the said circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the ground of lack of proximity is not available in the
instant case.
16. With regard to the contention that the State has
not sought for cancellation of bail, the respondents contend
that the detenue had engaged in crimes while he was on bail
in earlier cases. Further, Rowdy Sheets were opened
against him at Andersonpet Police Station on 08.09.2020
and Oorgaum Police Station on 06.03.2024, which have also
not deterred him. In the said circumstances, the said
ground is not sustainable.
17. The pending cases against the detenue are with
regard to grievous hurt, violent groupclash, attempt to
murder, gang assault, group violence etc. In the case of
Arjun s/o Ratan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and
Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3718, the Apex
Court has clearly laid that for an act to qualify as a
disturbance to public, it must:-
1. Have an impact on the boarder community,
2. Evoke feelings of fear, panic and insecurity, and
3. Disturb the current life of the community.
These aspects have been specifically stated in the order of
detention as under:-
" x x x x x You are in the habit of absconding after
the registration against you. Offences committed by you
have caused harm, danger and feeling of fear among the
general public, tranquility and order is deemed to have
been adversely affected.
There is no doubt that you will continue to indulge
in this habitual criminal and GOONDA activities which will
disrupt normalcy in KGF district and Bangalore city
adversely. Action taken against you under the Indian Penal
Code has had no effect on you and you continue to freely
indulge in criminal and anti-social activities. You will
continue to indulge in activities detrimental to public order
while you are facing trial.
Therefore due to above mentioned reasons, as a
precautionary measure, to protect the interest of public
and to prevent future attacks and protect public order,
peace and tranquility it is essential to proceed against you
under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, GOONDAS,
Immortal Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers Act 1985
(Karnataka Act No.12 of 1985).
x x x x x"
18. Further, the ground of non-mentioning of twelve
days time for making of the representation in the Order of
Detention is also not a sustainable ground. Though, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
there are decisions to the effect that the representation to
the detaining authority has to be made within twelve days
from making of the order, we are unable to agree with the
said proposition.
19. Section 3(3) of the 1985 Act only provides a
timeline of twelve days within which an order made by an
officer mentioned in sub-Section 2 of the 1985 Act has to be
approved by the State Government. However, the said
provision does not provide that a representation made to the
detaining authority or to the Government need not be
considered beyond the said period of twelve days. In the
case of K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v.
Union of India and others reported in (1991) 1 SCC
476, the Apex Court has considered the provisions of
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and has held that the right to
make a representation as provided under clause (4) and (5)
of Article 22 of the Constitution of India is an absolute right
and there is no time limit provided for consideration of the
representation. If a representation is filed before any of the
authorities, the same has to be considered in accordance
with law. The mere fact that the twelve days time for
approval by the State Government is not specifically
mentioned in the order will make no difference to the
situation. Any finding to the contrary in the judgments of
the High Courts relied on by the writ petitioner would not be
good law in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court.
20. In the instant case, the order of detention
specifically provides as follows:-
"xxxxx
If you desire to make any representation against the
said order of detention to me you may do so and submit it
through the Superintendent, Central prison, Bangalore.
If you desire to make any representation against the
said order of detention to the Government of Karnataka,
you may do so under address it to the Superintendent,
Central prison Bangalore.
You are informed that the State Government shall
within three weeks from the date of your detention make a
reference to and place the requisite material before the
Advisory Board, constituted under Section 9 of the
Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, GOONDAS,
Immortal Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers Act 1985
(Karnataka Act No.12 of 1985), to enable the advisory
board to make a report whether in its opinion there is
sufficient cause for your detention.
You are also hereby informed that if you want to
submit any representation to the Advisory Board against
the detention order you may do so and address it to the
Chairman, Advisory Board constituted under the said Act,
and submit it through the Superintendent, Central prison
Bangalore where you are detained.
You are further informed that Advisory Board shall
hear you in person in due course, if the Board considers it
essential to do so or if you so desire. If you desire to be
heard in person by the Advisory Board you may intimate
your desire to the Government. Where you are detained.
So that the Advisory Board may be intimated about it and
the arrangements may be made to produce you before the
Advisory Board, on the date to be fixed by it for the
purpose. If you decide to be represented through a friend
or an agent before the Advisory Board, you may intimate
his name to the undersigned through the Superintendent,
Central prison, Bangalore to place the same before the
Advisory Board. You may also keep your friend ready to
appear before the Advisory Board on the date to be
notified and intimated to you later. Your friend or agent
should not be legal practitioner or comrade in the trade.
x x x x x."
21. In the circumstances, we find that the right to
submit a representation has been specifically informed to
the writ petitioner. However, no representation was filed
before the detaining authority. The representations filed
before the Government and the Advisory Board have been
duly considered as well.
22. Learned SPP-1 has also relied on the judgment in
Gautam Jain v. Union of India reported in (2017) 3 SCC
133, to contend that where the Detention Order is passed
against the detenue on different grounds which are
independent of each other, the detention would survive even
if one of the grounds is found to be non-existent or legally
unsustainable. It is further contended that the minor or
clerical discrepancies in an Order of Detention will not
invalidate the order, if the order is sustainable in all other
respects.
23. In support of the said contentions, the learned
SPP-1 would rely on the decisions of the Apex Court in
Kamrunnisa Badrunnisa Sithya Aysha v. Union of India
reported in (1991) 1 SCC 128, Union of India v.
Mohammed Ahmed Ibrahim reported in 1993 Supp (1)
SCC 405 and the decision of this Court in Vijaya v.
Commissioner of Police and Others reported in 2018
SCC OnLine Kar 3200.
24. It is contended that if the mistake was of a trivial
nature, which would, in no way interfere with the right of
the detenue to make a representation as against the
proposed detention, then, the order cannot be set at naught
on that ground alone.
25. We notice that the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has contended that there is no Crime
No.280/2024 registered by the Andersonpet Police Station
and that the reliance of the said crime is a clear mistake.
However, serial No.5 in the list of criminal cases mentioned
in the Order of Detention specifically states that Crime
No.280/2024 of Andersonpet Police Station refers to
proceedings under Section 129(e) and 129(g) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS' for short)
and states that the detenue has been bound over by an
order passed under Section 129 of the BNSS by executing a
bail bond for his good behaviour. Therefore, it is clear that
the number mentioned at serial No.5 does not refer to a
crime at all but to an order passed under Section 129 of the
BNSS by the Executive Magistrate, as is stated in the Order
of Detention. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept
the contention of the writ petitioner that the Detention Order
is bad for reliance on a non-existing crime.
26. Having considered the contentions advanced on
either side, we are of the opinion that the grounds raised in
the writ petition and during the course of the arguments are
not tenable. The challenge raised against the Order of
Detention therefore fails. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
(Habeas Corpus) is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
cp*
