[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Varalakshmamma vs Commissioner Of Police on 9 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) No.3 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SMT. VARALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE GANGADHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
HAMPASANDRA VILLAGE
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 210
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KASHYAP, ADV., FOR
SMT. N. PADMAVATHI, ADV.)
AND:
1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NO.1 INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
YELAHANKA SUB DIVISION
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 063
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPARTMENT OF HOME
(LAW AND ORDER)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2
4. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
GULBARGA CENTRAL PRISON
KALABURAGI DISTRICT-585 102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.A.BELLIAPPA, SPP-1 A/W
SRI. P.THEJESH, HCGP)
THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE DETENTION
OF SRI. MANJUNATHA @ HOO MANJA PRESENTLY IN THE
CUSTODY OF RESPONDENT NO.4, BY ORDER
NO.11/CRM(4)/DTN/2025 DATED 07.07.2025 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 APPROVED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 BY ORDER
NO.HD 329 SST 2025 DATED 14.07.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
CONFIRMED AND CONTINUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 BY ORDER
NO.HD 329 SST 2025 (ANNEXURE-D) DATED 19.08.2025 AS
ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO.
THIS WP(HC) HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 24.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
3
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
The Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) is filed seeking to
quash the Detention Order No.11/CRM(4)/DTN/2025 dated
04.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1 approved by
respondent No.3 by Order No.HD 329 SST 2025 dated
14.07.2025 and confirmed and continued by respondent
No.3 by Order No.HD 329 SST 2025 dated 19.08.2025.
2. We have heard Shri. Krishna Kashyap, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri. B.A. Belliappa,
learned State Public Prosecutor-I along with Shri. N.
Thejesh, High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner challenges the Order of Detention on five major
grounds. They are as follows:-
(i) Grounds of Detention were not furnished to the
detenue.
(ii) Lack of proximate nexus between the crimes and
detention. The last crime was committed in
December, 2024, whereas the detenue was
detained in July 2025, which is after seven
months. Therefore, the Detention Order has no
fresh allegations.
(iii) The respondent authorities failed to prove misuse
of bail. The detenue was granted bail in all cases.
He was acquitted in one and was admittedly a
minor in two cases. The respondent authorities
did not seek revocation/cancellation of bail in any
of the cases.
(iv) Intentional suppression of the fact that the
detenue was enlarged on bail in Crime
No.259/2024 by an Order dated 12.06.2025
passed in Criminal Petition No.3642/2025 by this
Court.
(v) The detenue was arbitrarily detained and the
same is violative of Articles 21 and 22(5) of the
Constitution of India.
It is contended that for the grounds mentioned above, the
Order of Detention passed on 04.07.2025 under Section
3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, [Immoral
Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates]
Act, 1985 ('1985 Act' for short) is illegal and liable to be set
aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:-
• Ameena Begum v. The State of
Telangana & Ors. reported in 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 743;
• Smt. Jayamma v. Commissioner of Police
& Ors. reported in 2019 SCC Online Kar
2965; and
• Sri. Anil Kumar V @ Anil Reddy @ Anil v.
Commissioner of Police & Ors by Order
dated 28.02.2025 passed in
W.P.H.C.No.4/2025.
5. The learned State Public Prosecutor-1 appearing
for the respondents, on the other hand, has placed a
detailed statement of objections on record. The detenue -
Shri. Manjunatha @ Hoo Manja is the son of the petitioner.
It is submitted that the detenue has been habitually
engaging in serious criminal activities and is involved in
offences including murder, attempt to murder, rioting,
assault, theft, and other acts of violence, thereby creating
an atmosphere of fear and insecurity among the general
public. It is further submitted that a Rowdy Sheet was
opened against the detenue at Yelahanka New Town Police
Station on 06.12.2014. The consolidated statement of the
criminal cases registered against the detenue is given
below:-
SL. Police Sections Brief Case Status
No. Station & Allegation
Crime No
1. Yelahanka 143, 147, Murder case Trial in SC
New Town 148, 302 r/w involving No.
PS -Cr. No. 149 IPC attack with 1515/2013
158/2013 lethal
weapons
2. Yelahanka 454,457,380 House Trial pending
New Town IPC breaking (CC No.
PS -Cr. No. and theft of 14145/2013)
149/2013 gold and
silver
ornaments
3. Yelahanka 143, 147, Attempt to Acquitted
New Town 148, 307 r/w murder (SC No.
PS -Cr. No. 149 IPC 693/2017-
124/2015 29.11.2023)
4. Yelahanka 143, 144, Assault and Trial pending
New Town 147, 148, attempt to (CC No.
PS -Cr. No. 506, 323, murder 3595/2024)
43/2019 307 r/w 149
IPC
5. Yelahanka 109(1), Assault with Committed
New Town 189(4), 190, machetes to Sessions
PS-Cr. No. 191(1)(2)(3), causing Court -SC
423/2024 111 BNS grievous No. awaited
injuries
6. Chikkajala 109, 117(3), Attempt to Trial pending
PS -Cr. No. 118, 3(5), 61 murder (SC No.
259/2024 BNS with 15043/2025)
machetes
causing
severe
injuries
including
amputation
6. It is submitted that the Detaining Authority was
satisfied that the detenue is a 'goonda' under Section 2(g) of
the 1985 Act. Respondent No.2 upon recording the
subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenue were
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the
Detention Order dated 04.07.2025 under Sections 3(1) and
3(2) of the 1985 Act. It is further submitted that the
detenue was furnished with the Detention Order and the
grounds of detention on the same day. He was also informed
of his right to make representations before the Detaining
Authority, Advisory Board and the State Government.
7. The State Government approved the Detention
Order on 14.07.2025. The State Government rejected the
representation of the detenue on 25.07.2025. The Detention
Order along with other connected records was placed before
the Advisory board on 18.07.2025 and the detenue
submitted a representation before the Board on 22.07.2025.
Thereafter, the Advisory Board held its sitting and
considered the case of the detenue on 04.08.2025 and
prepared its report and opinion on 19.08.2025, opining that
there was sufficient cause for continued detention of the
detenue. The State Government upon receiving the report of
the Advisory Board on 23.06.2025, confirmed the same on
25.06.2025.
8. In response to the grounds raised by the
petitioner, the learned SPP-1 submitted that the Detention
Order is based on a series of criminal cases, which
demonstrate a consistent pattern of violent behaviour
exhibited by the detenue over a period of time. The
cumulative effects of these incidents establish that the
detenue is a habitual offender whose activities are
prejudicial to public order.
9. It is further submitted the fact that the detenue
has been acquitted in one case or has obtained bail in
several other criminal cases does not negate his criminal
antecedents. The Detaining Authority has rightly relied upon
the criminal antecedents of the detenue while arriving at the
subjective satisfaction.
10. It is further submitted that the Detaining
Authority was aware that the detenue had been enlarged on
bail in Crime No.259/2024. The Detention Order records that
despite being granted bail in several cases earlier, the
detenue continued to be involved in criminal activities. In
Union of India v. Paul Manickam reported in (2003) 8
SCC 342, the Apex Court held that preventive detention can
validly be ordered even when the detenue is on bail, if there
exists a real possibility of him in continuing prejudicial
activities.
11. It is further submitted that the Detention Order
has been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of
the 1985 Act and the constitutional safeguards provided
under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The
Detention Order was approved by the State Government
within the statutory time and the matter was referred to the
Advisory Board within the required time under the 1985 Act.
12. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on
either side and have considered the contentions advanced.
We notice that the Detention, Approval and Confirmation
Orders produced by the petitioner contain the admitted
signature of the detenue. From an examination of the
original files produced by the respondent, the very same
signature is affixed to the grounds of detention available in
the file. The learned SPP-1 submits that the grounds of
detention were duly served on the detenue and the detenue
has signed in his own hand acknowledging the receipt of the
Detention Order as well as the grounds of detention and the
supporting documents. A photograph of the detenue
accepting the detention order is also available in the file
which was shown to the petitioner's counsel. In the
circumstances, the primary contention urged by the
petitioner that the detenue was served with only the Order
of Detention and supporting documents and that the
grounds of detention were not served on him is not factually
correct and the said ground therefore, fails.
13. Further, we notice from the grounds of detention
available in the file that the fact of the detenue being
enlarged on bail on 02.07.2025 pursuant to the order of this
Court is clearly mentioned in the grounds of detention.
Further, the contention raised by the petitioner that there is
no proximity between the date of the last prejudicial activity
and the passing of the Order of Detention, is also factually
incorrect, in view of the fact that though the last crime was
committed in December 2024, the detenue was admittedly
in judicial custody till he was enlarged on bail on
02.07.2025. If that be so, the contention with regard to
lack of proximity also has to fail that it is only when there is
a chance of the detenue being released on bail or when the
detenue is actually released on bail that the question of
preventive detention arises at all.
14. The further contention that the detenue was a
minor when he committed two of the offences is also not
borne out by the records in the instant case. The records
would show that the detenue is presently aged about 31
years. His date of birth is recorded as 16.06.1994. The said
fact is not specifically disputed by the petitioner, who is his
mother. Therefore, the contention that the detenue was a
minor in the year 2013 when the offences were committed
does not stand to reason. The said contention is only to be
rejected. The further contention that the detenue was on
bail in all the cases is not sustainable in view of the fact that
there are cases registered against the detenue when he was
admittedly on bail in earlier offences. The Detention Order
cannot be set aside on the said ground.
15. The Order of the Government approving the
detention specifically states that the detenue has been
involved in several cases such as murder, attempted
murder, assault, rioting, house breaking thefts, threats etc.
The fact that he has been released on bail in the pending
cases is also specifically recorded. It is stated that after
being released on bail, he absconds, commits further crimes
and violates bail conditions. The Order also says that there
is a possibility of gang-wars between his associates and
rivals, since he is habitually committing criminal cases. The
Detaining Authority as well as the Government specifically
state that the detention is required to maintain public order.
16. In view of the fact that the Order of Detention
along with the grounds and all supporting documents have
been duly served on the detenue and since we have found
that the grounds raised by him in challenge to the Order of
Detention are not sustainable, the challenge raised to the
orders of preventive detention is devoid of merits.
17. The Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) therefore fails
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
cp*
