Recently, the Karnataka High Court dealt with a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order passed under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985. The core issue before the Court was whether offences allegedly committed during juvenile age could be relied upon to justify such detention.
A preventive detention order was passed against a 19-year-old individual on the basis of multiple criminal cases, including serious allegations like murder, attempt to murder, and obstruction of public servants. The detention was approved and later confirmed by the authorities. The petitioner approached the Court seeking quashing of the detention and release of the detenue, arguing that several of the offences relied upon were committed when the detenue was below 18 years of age.
The counsel for the Petitioner contended that reliance on offences committed during juvenile age is impermissible in law. Under Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, such past conduct cannot result in disqualification or be used to justify preventive detention.
The State argued that the detenue was a habitual offender involved in serious criminal and anti-social activities, disturbing public order. It was submitted that the detention was based on valid subjective satisfaction of the authorities considering the gravity and frequency of offences.
The Court examined the record and noted that several offences relied upon were committed when the detenue had not attained the age of 18 years. It emphasized the protective intent of juvenile law and held that “It is clear that atleast in some of the cases… the detenue was below the age of 18 as on the date of commission of the offence.”
The Court further reiterated the purpose of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act “The intention of Section 24… is to see that a child who has committed an offence does not suffer any disqualification on account of such commission.”
Rejecting the State’s reliance on such offences, the Court observed that “The very fact that those offences were taken into consideration… would vitiate the Order of Detention and will go against the very purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act.”
The High Court held that the detention order was legally unsustainable and accordingly set it aside. It directed that the detenue be released forthwith, subject to there being no requirement of detention in any other case.
Case Title: Smt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition Habeas Corpus No. 35 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sri. Hashmath Pasha, Senior Counsel for Sri. Kariappa N.A.
Advocate for the Respondent: Sri. B.A. Belliappa, SPP-I with Sri. P. Thejesh, HCGP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
