[Cites 26, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Priyanka vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
WPHC No. 200015 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
WRIT PETITION HABEAS CORPUS NO. 200015 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. PRIYANKA
W/O YASHWANT BETTA JEWARGI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TAJ SULTANPUR, NEAR DARGA,
KALABURAGI - 585 104.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHARANABASAVESHWAR MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA S
D 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL
ADMINISTRATION (LAW AND ORDER),
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01.
2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KALABURAGI CITY, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
OF POLICE (L AND O) AND SPECIAL EXECUTIVE
MAGISTRATE, KALABURAGI CITY,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
WPHC No. 200015 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE, NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
KALABURAGI CITY, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
CHOWK POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDDALING P.PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION OR
ANY OTHER ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO PRODUCE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND
SRI.YESHWANT S/O SRIPATI MELAKERI BEFORE THIS HON'BLE
COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY SET HIM FREE IN THE EVENT OF
HIS ILLEGAL DETENTION BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
II) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT QUASHING THE
DETENTION ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-2 DATED
25.04.2025 IN CASE BEARING NO.02/GOONDA/MAG-2/COP/
KC/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF DETENUE
SRI YESHWANT S/O SRIPATI MELAKERI AND ETC.
THIS WPHC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
WPHC No. 200015 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)
The petitioner has challenged an order of detention
dated 25.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.2
detaining her husband (henceforth referred to as
'detenue') under Section 3(1)(2) 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
(henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1985').
2. The respondent No.5 submitted a proposal to
the respondent No.2 requesting the invocation of the
provisions of Act, 1985 against the detenue for his
preventive detention under Section 3(1)(2) of the Act,
1985. Along with the proposal, respondent No.5 submitted
documents in support of his request for preventive
detention of detenue. The respondent No.2 after
considering the material passed an order dated
25.04.2025 detaining the husband of the petitioner. The
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
order of detention and the grounds of detention along with
all documents were served on the detenue. The order of
detention was sent for approval to the respondent No.1
who approved it in terms of an order dated 05.05.2025.
The detenue submitted a representation against his
preventive detention, which was rejected by the
respondent No.1 in terms of an endorsement dated
16.05.2025. Thereafter, the detenue was informed about
placing the order of detention before the advisory board
for approval on 25.04.2025. The advisory board in terms
of an order dated 05.05.2025 approved the order of
detention. The petitioner is therefore before this court
challenging the order of detention.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the order of detention is without complying the
mandatory provisions of Act, 1985 and without carefully
examining the material on record. He contends that the
respondent No.5 being the sponsoring authority did not
submit all the documents for the consideration of the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
respondent No.2. He submitted that the respondent No.5
had furnished documents relating to the conviction of the
detenue in S.C.No.179/2012, but the order passed by this
Court in Criminal Appeal No.200048/2014, by which the
detenue was acquitted, was not produced before the
respondent No.2. He also contends that the detenue was
enlarged on bail in all the cases referred to in the proposal
and the orders of bail and the information that the
detenue was released on bail was not placed before the
respondent No.2. He contends that an order of detention
cannot be passed for the mere asking and on the mere
ground that some criminal cases are filed against the
detenue. He contends for an order of preventive detention
under the provisions of Act, 1985, the detenue should
endanger public order. He contends that mere pendency of
cases, does not justify a preventive detention more
particularly when all the Courts have released the detenue
on bail. He contends that not a single case is registered
against the detenue which relates to disturbing public
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
order and morality and hence the order of detention is
unwarranted and deserves to be set aside.
4. In support of these contentions, he has relied
upon the following judgments:
1) Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana - (2023) 9
SCC 587;
2) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana - AIR 2024
SC 1610;
3) Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura - 2022
SCC Online 1333;
4) Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India - 2025 INSC
327;
5) Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka - 2015 (1) KLJ
495;
6) Smt.Kalavati vs. State of Karnataka - 2015 (6)
KLJ 337;
7) Smt.R.Latha v. T.Madiyal - 2000 (5) KLJ 304;
8) Smt.Shrenika v. State of Karnataka - W.P.
No.201957/2023;
9) Sri Mutturaj v. State of Karnataka - W.P.
No.200003/2025; and
10) Smt.Laxmi v. State of Karnataka -
W.P.No.200002/2025.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
5. (i) The petition is opposed by the State which
has filed a statement of objections wherein it is contended
that the petitioner has suppressed that the detenue was
convicted in S.C.No.236/2019 for offences punishable
under Sections 353, 332, 333, 307 IPC along with Section
25 and 27 of the Arms Act by the III Additional Sessions
Judge, Kalaburagi vide judgment dated 26.09.2022.
(ii) It is also claimed that there are four more cases
pending trial and the detenue is tried for heinous offences
while one case is under investigation. Therefore, it is
contended that the detenue is a dangerous offender, who,
if left free would be a threat to the society at large. It
admitted that the detenue was enlarged on bail in all cases
referred to in the proposal submitted by the respondent
No.5, but contended that the detenue had violated the
conditions of the bail orders time and again and he had
paid fine of Rs.30,000/- in the office of the respondent
No.3 for jumping the bail conditions on 16.11.2024. It is
claimed that the detenue was involved in criminal activities
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
from the year 2010 till now and he has committed
offences at regular intervals and has no respect for law. In
addition, it is claimed that a rowdy sheet is opened against
him at the respondent No.5 on 17.05.2014 and he is kept
under observation. It is claimed that instead of mending
his behaviour, the detenue got involved in further fresh
cases for heinous offences including offences under the
Arms Act. Therefore, it is contended that the detenue is
not deterred from committing any offences. It is also
claimed that the detenue is a threat to public tranquility in
the city and therefore invoking provisions under
Section 3(1)(2) of the Goonda Act, an order of detention
was passed.
6. It is claimed that the detenue was involved in
the following cases :
PÀ.æ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄä /
ªÀµð
À PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A ¥À¸
æ ÀÄv
Û À ºÀAvÀ
¸ÀA. oÁuÉ UÀÄ£Áß ¸ÀASÉå
1 2010 ¸À¨ï C§ð£ï 223/2010 399, 402 L¦¹ F ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À zÀ°è ²PÉë
«¢ü¸¯À ÁVzÉ.
2 2015 ¸À¨ï C§ð£ï 237/2015 182, 211 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 25, 27 £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ DAiÀÄÄzsÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ «ZÁgÀuA É iÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀz
Û É
3 2017 ¸À¨ï C§ð£ï 347/2017 143, 147, 148, 364, 302, 201, £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
504, 506, 109 ¸ÀA.149 L¦¹ «ZÁgÀuA
É iÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀz
Û É
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 25, 27 ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ DAiÀÄÄzsÀ
PÁAiÉÄÝ
4 2017 ¸À¨ï C§ð£ï 415/2017 353, 332, 333, 307 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À zÀ°è ²PÉë
¥À©Pè ï ¥Áæ¥Ànð qÁåªÉÄÃeï DPïÖ «¢ü¸¯
À ÁVzÉ.
1984 PÀ®A. 3 ºÁUÀÆ 25, 27
¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ DAiÀÄÄzsÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ
5 2022 D®ªÉÄïï 16/2022 143, 147, 148, 342, 365, 109, £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
(«dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ 120 (©) 364J, 302, 201 «ZÁgÀuA É iÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀz
Û É
f¯É)è ¸ÀA.149 L¦¹
6 2024 ZËPï 167/2024 189 (2), 191(2), 191 (3), 109(1), £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
61(2), 111 ¸ÀA.190 ©J£ï.J¸ï. «ZÁgÀuA É iÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀz
Û É
PÁAiÉÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 25, 27 ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ
DAiÀÄÄzsÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ
7 2025 §æºÀä¥ÀÄgÀ 52/2025 308 (2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À ªÀÅ vÀ¤SÁ
3(5) ©.J£ï.J¸ï.PÁAiÉÄÝ ºÀAvÀz° À g
è ÀÄvÀz
Û .É
7. It is contended that the purpose of detaining
the detenue is not to punish him but to prevent him from
committing similar offences. Therefore, it is contended
that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by
respondent No.2.
8. They learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
reiterated above contentions and submitted that the
detenue has indulged in serious offences ranging from
offences under Section 364, 302 and Arms Act etc., He
contends that if the detenue goes around with an illegal
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
firearm, that would create fear in the minds of the general
public and hence he would be a threat to public order and
hence, the respondent No.2 has rightly passed the order of
detention. He therefore prays that the petition filed by the
petitioner be dismissed. In support of his contention, he
has relied upon the following judgments :
i) Pesala Nookaraju vs. The Government of Andhra
Pradesh and others - 2023 INSC 734;
ii) Smt.Roopa W/o Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka
and others - W.P.(HC) No.37/2025;
iii) Mrs.Shaziya vs. State of Karnataka and others -
W.P.(HC) No.200011/2025.
9. We have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor for the
State/respondents.
10. The order of detention passed by the
respondent No.2 shows that what was placed before the
respondent No.2 were the documents relating to several
cases registered against the detenue in various police
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
stations. The first of the cases was the conviction of the
detenue in Crime No.223/2010. However, the detenue had
filed an appeal against the said judgment before this Court
in Criminal Appeal No.200048/2014 where he was
acquitted. The said material was not placed before the
respondent No.5. Similarly, the detenue was released on
bail in all the seven offences that were registered against
him and the said fact was not placed before the
respondent No.2. The order of detention shows that the
prime reasons for the arrest of the detenue under the Act,
1985, were (i) Cases registered in various districts, (ii)
Conviction by courts, (iii). Prime accused in heinous cases,
(iv). Rowdy cheetah, (v). Indulging in barbarous acts, (vi).
No respect towards law of land, (vii) Tendency to indulge
in acts prejudicial to maintenance of law and order, (viii).
Threat to public peace and order.
11. A 'Goonda' is defined under Section 2(g) of the
Act, 1985 as follows :
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
"(g) "Goonda" means a person who either by
himself or as a member of or 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)."
12. The respondents are vested with the power to
pass orders of detention of certain persons who are
goondas, who are in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order in the manner prescribed
under Section 3 of the Act, 1985. The same is extracted
below :
"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 :
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
Provided that the period specified in the order
made by the State Government under this sub-
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."
13. While doing so, the respondents are bound to
be cautious and ensure compliance of Article 22 of the
Constitution of India as the fundamental right of the
detenue under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would
be impaired. Therefore, the respondents are bound to
ensure that the respondent No.2 was fully informed of all
the facts and circumstances which warranted the
preventive detention of the detenue.
14. An order of preventive detention curtails the
personal life and liberty of an individual and therefore
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
while passing such an order, the detaining authority
cannot do so casually. He is bound to take a holistic view
of all facts and circumstances and verify whether there is a
need for detaining a person to present him from
committing similar offences. It is apposite to rely the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura and others
- 2022 SCC Online SC 1333, which held as follows :
"27. From the above decisions, it emerges that
the requisite subjective satisfaction, the formation of
which is a condition precedent to passing of a
detention order will get vitiated if material or vital
facts which would have bearing on the issue and
weighed the satisfaction of the detaining authority
one way or the other and influence his mind are
either withheld or suppressed by the sponsoring
authority or ignored and not considered by the
detaining authority before issuing the detention
order."
15. As stated earlier, the respondent No.5 did not
place on record the order of acquittal of the detenue in
Criminal Appeal No.200048/2014 and the orders of bail
granted by the courts in all the cases registered against
the detenue. Therefore the respondent No.2 was not fully
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
appraised of all facts so as to enable the respondent No.2
to take an informed decision to pass an order of
preventive detention. If only the Courts were convinced
that the detenue was a habitual offender and his release
was deleterious to law and order, the Courts would not
have, released the detenue on bail. Once the detenue was
released on bail, there must be extraordinary and
compelling reasons to detain a person and curtail his
fundamental rights. Be that as it may, the respondent
No.5 ought to have justified the request for preventive
detention of the detenue by placing all material facts to
justify that the detenue has indulged in criminal activities
after he was released on bail and such criminal activities
affected public order. Our criminal jurisprudence is built on
the premise that an accused is innocent until proven
guilty. A person is not guilty of an offence merely because
the police say so but have to prove to the Court as to how
he is guilty. If in the meanwhile, the Courts have released
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
such person on bail, the authorities cannot misuse the
power of preventive detention to detain such a person.
16. Mere involvement in criminal cases, even if
heinous per se would not enable the respondent No.2 to
seek for preventive detention as the law of the land would
take care of such offences. The cases which are registered
against the detenue even if taken into consideration, show
that the detenue had indulged in the alleged acts for
personal gain. There appears to be no case where the
detenue has indulged in activities which affect public
order. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nenavathi
Bujji v. State of Telangana - AIR 2024 SC 1610 where
the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the distinction
between law and order and public order, held as follows :
"23. The explanation attached to Section 2(a) of
the Act 1986 reproduced above contemplates that
'public order' shall be deemed to have been affected
adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected
adversely, inter alia if any of the activities of any
person referred to in Section 2(a) directly or
indirectly, are causing or is likely to cause any harm,
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the
general public or any section thereof or a grave or
widespread danger to life, property or public health.
The Explanation to Section 2(a) also provides that
for the purpose of Section 2, a person shall be
deemed to be "acting in any manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order" when such person
is a "GOONDA" and engaged in activities which affect
adversely or are likely to affect adversely the
maintenance of public order. It, therefore, becomes
necessary to determine whether besides the person
being a "GOONDA" his alleged activities are such
which adversely affected the public order or are
likely to affect the maintenance of public order."
17. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the
materials placed before the respondent No.2 were in the
first instance insufficient and the respondent No.5 did not
place all materials before the respondent No.2 to pass an
informed decision for preventive detention of the detenue.
Besides this, the mere involvement of the detenue in
criminal offences, per se does not amount to violation of
public order and consequently, the power under
Section 3(1)(3) of the Act, 1985 could not have been
exercised against the petitioner.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1940-DB
HC-KAR
18. In that view of the matter, this petition is
allowed. The order of preventive detention of the detenue
dated 25.04.2025 in case bearing No.2/Goonda/MAG-
2/COP/KC/2025 passed by respondent No.2 was set aside.
The detenue is directed to be released forthwith.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
SN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
