[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Narendra Gopal Gowda A N vs State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
W.P.H.C. NO. 110 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI NARENDRA GOPAL GOWDA A N,
S/O A G NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT ANIKARANAHALLI POST,
SUGGONDAHALLI, MALUR,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RANGANATH REDDY R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
Digitally signed LAW AND ORDER DEPARTMENT,
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.
KHANAM
Location: HIGH 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR - 563 103.
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
# 413, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, KOLAR - 563 101.
4. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
MASTI POLICE STATION,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
RAMEGOWDA LAYOUT,
MASTI, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 139.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT,
MYSORE CENTRAL PRISON,
ASHOKA ROAD, RAJENDRA NAGAR,
MYSORE-570 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.A BELLIAPPA, SPP-I WITH
SRI THEJESH P, HCGP FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
---
THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DECLARE THAT THE
DETENTION ORDER NO.MAG(2) CR/L/0/03/2025-26 DATED
30.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED SECOND
RESPONDENT, GOVERNMENT SANCTION NO.HD 474 SST 2025
DATED 06.09.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND GOVERNMENT
CONFIRMATION ORDER NO. HD 474 ST 2025 DATED
09/10/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND
THE SET THE DETENU AT LIBERTY ETC.
THIS W.P.H.C. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
18.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,
THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This petition is filed by the brother of the detenue
seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
detention order dated 30.08.2025 passed in
No.MAG(2)CR/L&O/03/2025-26 by the Respondent No.2,
Order of Approval No.HD 474 SST 2025 dated 04.09.2025
and the Order of Confirmation No.HD 474 SST 2025 dated
09.10.2025 by the Respondent No.1 detaining the detenue
in Central Prison, Mysuru, under the provisions of
Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers,
Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Trafficking
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates) Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Goonda Act').
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this
petition are that the detenue has been detained pursuant
to the order of detention passed by the respondent No.2
against the detenue on 30.08.2025 under Section 2(g) of
the Goonda Act for being a habitual offender and
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
repeatedly undertaking activities punishable under the
various the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), the Arms Act, 1959
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Arms Act') and the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST
Act') and in order to prevent him from further engaging in
the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public
order. The order of detention was approved vide order
dated 04.09.2025 and confirmed by the respondent No.1
vide order dated 09.10.2025. Being aggrieved by the said
order of detention, order of approval and the consequent
confirmation of the said order, this petition is filed by the
brother of the detenue.
3. Sri.Ranganath Reddy R., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the detention
order has been passed in violation of law and suffers from
the procedural irregularities. It is submitted that there is
no live and proximate link between the past actions of the
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
detenue and the passing of the order of detention. It is
further submitted that in Crime No.75/2021 relied on in
the detention order, it is shown that the bail is granted by
the 'Hon'ble Karnataka High Court (Criminal Appeal
No.1435/2021)', however, the said case is totally incorrect
and does not involve the detenue. It is also submitted
that the activities undertaken by the detenue do not cause
any public disorder and the respondent-State ought to
have resorted to the remedies available under ordinary
criminal law, instead of resorting to passing an order of
preventive detention, which is impermissible as per law.
Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting the
detenue free.
4. The learned State Public Prosecutor-I appearing
for the respondent-State submits that the order of
detention has been passed after following all procedural
requirements and arriving at a subjective satisfaction. It
is submitted that the detenue, despite being under trial in
various offences and being out on bail, has continued his
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
illegal activities causing disturbance to the public order
due to which, he is required to be detained under the
order of preventive detention. Hence, he seeks to dismiss
the petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, learned SPP-I appearing for the
respondent-State and perused the material available on
record. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced on both the sides and the material
available on record.
6. The point that arises for consideration in this
petition is:
"Whether the impugned order of
detention dated 30.08.2025 passed by the
respondent No.2, the order of approval dated
04.09.2025 and the order of confirmation
dated 09.10.2025 passed by the respondent
No.1, are sustainable under law?"
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. To appreciate the case on hand, it would be
useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Goonda Act
and they are extracted as under for ready reference:
"3. Power to make orders detaining certain
persons.- (1) The State Government may, if
satisfied with respect to any bootlegger or drug-
offender or gambler or goonda or [Immoral Traffic
Offender or Slum-Grabber or Video or Audio pirate]
that with a view to prevent him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order, it is necessary so to do, make an order
directing that such persons be detained.
(2) If, having regard to the circumstances
prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the
local limits of the jurisdiction of a District
Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State
Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to
do, it may, by order in writing, direct that during
such period as may be specified in the order, such
District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may
also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1),
exercise the powers conferred by the sub-section :
Provided that the period specified in the order
made by the State Government under this sub-
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
section shall not, in the first instance, exceed three
months, but the State Government may, if satisfied
as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend
such order to extend such period from time to time
by any period not exceeding three months at any
one time.
(3) When any order is made under this
section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2),
he shall forthwith report the fact to the State
Government together with the grounds on which
the order has been made and such other particulars
as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter
and no such order shall remain in force for more
than twelve days after the making thereof, unless,
in the meantime, it has been approved by the State
Government.
8. Grounds of order of detention to be
disclosed to persons affected by the order.-
(1) When a person is detained in pursuance
of a detention order, the authority making the
order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than
five days from the date of detention, communicate
to him the grounds on which the order has been
made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity
of making a representation against the order to the
State Government.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require
the authority to disclose facts which it considers to
be against the public interest to disclose.
10. Reference to Advisory Board.-
In every case where a detention order has
been made under this Act the State Government
shall within three weeks from the date of detention
of a person under the order, place before the
Advisory Board constituted by it under section 9,
the grounds on which the order has been made and
the representation, if any, made against the order,
and in case where the order has been made by an
officer, also the report by such officer under sub-
section (3) of section 3.
11. Procedure of Advisory Board.-
(1) The Advisory Board shall after considering
the materials placed before it and, after calling for
such further information as it may deem necessary
from the State Government or from any person
called for the purpose through the State
Government or from the person concerned, and if,
in any particular case, the Advisory Board considers
it essential so to do or if the person concerned
desire to be heard, after hearing him in person,
submit its report to the State Government, within
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
seven weeks from the date of detention of the
person concerned.
(2) The report of the Advisory Board shall
specify in a separate part thereof the opinion of the
Advisory Board as to whether or not there is
sufficient cause for the detention of the person
concerned.
(3) When there is a difference of opinion
among the members forming the Advisory Board,
the opinion of the majority of such members shall
be deemed to be the opinion of the Board.
(4) The proceedings of the Advisory Board
and its report, excepting that part of the report in
which the opinion of the Advisory Board is
specified, shall be confidential.
(5) Nothing in this section shall entitle any
person against whom a detention order has been
made to appear by any legal practitioner in any
matter connected with the reference to the
Advisory Board.
13. Maximum period of detention.-
The maximum period for which any person
may be detained, in pursuance of any detention
order made under this Act which has been
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
confirmed under section 12 shall be twelve months
from the date of detention."
8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Sections
indicates that the State Government may, if satisfied with
respect to any "Goonda" as defined under Section 2(g) of
the Goonda Act, with a view to prevent him from acting in
any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order,
pass an order directing such a person to be detained.
Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Goonda Act empowers
the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police to
exercise the powers conferred under sub-Section (1) of
Section 3 of the Goonda Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 3
of the Goonda Act mandates that if the order is passed by
the Officer under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the
Goonda Act, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State
Government along with the grounds on which the order
has been made. The order made by the Officer under sub-
Section (2) shall remain in force for 12 days unless in the
meantime, the State Government approves it. Section 8
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
of the Goonda Act mandates that the grounds of detention
are required to be served on the detenue within 5 days
from the date of detention and shall offer him the earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the order
to the State Government. Section 10 of the Goonda Act
mandates that the order of detention made under the
Goonda Act shall be placed before the Advisory Board
within a period of 3 weeks from the date of detention
order by the State Government along with grounds on
which the order has been made and representation, if any,
made against the order. Section 11 of the Goonda Act
provides the procedure to be followed by the Advisory
Board. The Advisory Board is empowered to consider
providing personal hearing to the detenue and thereafter
submit report to the State Government within 7 weeks
from the date of detention of the person concerned. The
Advisory Board is required to forward its opinion as to
whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of
the person concerned. The opinion of the Advisory Board
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
is confidential. Section 13 of the Goonda Act indicates
that the maximum period for detention is 12 months from
the date of detention.
9. The impugned detention order dated
30.08.2025 is passed by the respondent No.2 by recording
the reason that the detenue is aged about 25 years and a
resident of Anikarahalli Village, Masti Hobli, Malur Taluk,
Kolar District and he has been involved in criminal cases
including assault, murder and offences under the Arms
Act, which has created fear in the minds of the people. To
arrive at such a conclusion, the Authority placed reliance
on the following cases:
(a) Crime No.81/2019 registered by Masti
Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307 read
with 34 of IPC.
(b) Crime No.75/2021 registered by Malur
Police Station for the offences punishable
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
under Sections 341, 143, 147, 302 of IPC
and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act.
(c) Crime No.150/2023 registered by Masti
Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 427, 506, 504 read with 34
of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
(d) Crime No.43/2024 registered by Berikai
Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 341 of IPC.
10. The aforesaid crimes were registered against
the detenue from 2019 to 2024. The last crime registered
against the detenue is in Crime No.43/2024 on
15.03.2024.
11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is no live and proximate link between
the past actions of the accused i.e the last crime
registered against him and the need for passing an order
of detention as there is a gap of over 16 months from the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
date of registration of the last offence registered against
the detenue and the passing of the order of detention,
which is impermissible under law.
12. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMEENA BEGUM
Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA & OTHERS1, wherein it was
held in paragraph 28 as under:
"28. In the circumstances of a given case, a
constitutional court when called upon to test the
legality of orders of preventive detention would be
entitled to examine whether:
28.1. The order is based on the requisite
satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining
authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to
the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which
validity of the exercise of the power is predicated,
would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the
power not being satisfied;
28.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the
detaining authority has applied its mind to all
relevant circumstances and the same is not based
1
(2023) 9 SCC 587
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of
the statute;
28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the
purpose for which it has been conferred, or
exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised
by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires;
28.4. The detaining authority has acted
independently or under the dictation of another
body;
28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-
created rules of policy or in any other manner not
authorised by the governing statute, has disabled
itself from applying its mind to the facts of each
individual case;
28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority
rests on materials which are of rationally probative
value, and the detaining authority has given due
regard to the matters as per the statutory
mandate;
28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing
in mind existence of a live and proximate link
between the past conduct of a person and the
imperative need to detain him or is based on
material which is stale;
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite
satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with
some degree of rationality and prudence, would
consider as connected with the fact and relevant to
the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof
the satisfaction is to be reached;
28.9. The grounds on which the order of preventive
detention rests are not vague but are precise,
pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity,
inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention,
giving him the opportunity to make a suitable
representation; and
28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law,
have been strictly adhered to."
13. It would also be useful to refer to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sama Aruna
v. State of Telangana2
"17. We are, therefore, satisfied that the
aforesaid detention order was passed on grounds
which are stale and which could not have been
considered as relevant for arriving at the subjective
satisfaction that the detenu must be detained. The
2
(2018) 12 SCC 150
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
detention order must be based on a reasonable
prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based
on his past conduct in light of the surrounding
circumstances. The live and proximate link that must
exist between the past conduct of a person and the
imperative need to detain him must be taken to have
been snapped in this case. A detention order which is
founded on stale incidents, must be regarded as an
order of punishment for a crime, passed without a
trial, though purporting to be an order of preventive
detention. The essential concept of preventive
detention is that the detention of a person is not to
punish him for something he has done but to prevent
him from doing it. See G. Reddeiah v. State of
A.P. [G. Reddeiah v. State of A.P., (2012) 2 SCC 389
: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 881] and P.U. Iqbal v. Union of
India [P.U. Iqbal v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 434
: 1992 SCC (Cri) 184] ."
14. It is clear from the aforesaid enunciation of law
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there has to be live
and proximate link between the past conduct of the
detenue and the need to pass an order of preventive
detention against him and there must be a reasonable
prognosis of the person's future behavior based on his
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
past conduct in view of the surrounding circumstances. In
the instant case, the last crime registered against the
detenue is dated 15.03.2024 and the detention order is
passed on 30.08.2025 in which there is a time gap of
more than 16 months from the last crime. We are of the
considered view that the last crime registered against the
detenue has no live and proximate link with the
satisfaction arrived by the Authorities in passing the
detention order, which is impermissible under law.
15. The other contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the Authorities, in the grounds of
detention have relied on the factually incorrect and
irrelevant data. On perusal of the grounds of detention,
the Detaining Authority has placed reliance on Crime
No.75/2021, which reflects the accused number, date of
arrest, date of bail and the name of the Court in a tabular
form. In the said table, the Court referred to is the 'High
Court of Karnataka' and the case number is reflected as
'Criminal Appeal No.1435/2021. However, it is noticed
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
that the aforesaid case is totally irrelevant and factually
incorrect as the parties in the aforesaid case are totally
unrelated to the case on hand.
16. We are of the considered view that the material
relied on in the grounds of detention by the Detaining
Authority, while arriving at a subjective satisfaction suffers
from factual inaccuracy, which cannot be allowed. It is
trite law that the power of preventive detention is an
'exceptional' measure due to its potential to violate the
sacred right of personal liberty guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. It is important that such a
power needs to be exercised with extreme caution by
relying on precise and accurate information. In the
instant case, the reliance placed on a factually incorrect
case reflects the casual approach taken in the process,
which cannot be permitted.
17. Though the petitioner has raised other grounds
in the petition to attack the order of detention, we are of
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
WPHC No. 110 of 2025
HC-KAR
the considered view that the impugned orders of detention
are required to be interfered on two grounds referred
supra. Hence, we need not consider the other
contentions. Having held that the detention order under
challenge is contrary to law and requires interference, we
are of the considered view that the impugned order of
detention is passed in violation of the fundamental rights
of the detenue guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
18. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned detention order dated
30.08.2025 passed by the respondent
No.2, the order of approval dated
04.09.2025 and the order of confirmation
dated 09.10.2025 passed by the
respondent No.1, are hereby quashed.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11186-DB
HC-KAR
iii. The respondents are directed to set the
detenue at liberty forthwith if his
detention is not required in any other
cases.
iv. Registry is directed to communicate the
operative portion of the order to the Chief
Superintendent of Central Prison, Mysuru,
forthwith for compliance.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8
