SRI SURESH N vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.BHARATH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.94 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI SURESH N
SON OF NALAPPA P
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.177
NEW BINNAMANGALA
100 FEET ROAD
INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.S.HEGDE, ADV. FOR
SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR S., ADV.)
Digitally
signed by
PAVITHRA N
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
LAW AND ORDER
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU
2
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU CITY
BENGALURU - 560001
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON
PARVATHI NAGAR
BELLARY - 583103
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, SPP-1 A/W
SMT. DEEPTHI ALVA, HCGP)
THIS WPHC (HABEAS CORPUS) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DECLARING THE DETENTION OF
KADAMBA, SON OF SURESH IS ILLEGAL AND SET HIM AT
LIBERTY FORTHWITH BY QUASHING THE DETENTION ORDER
BEARING REFERENCE NO.04/CRM(4)/DTN/2026 DATED
04.06.2026 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
UNDER SECTION 3(1) R/W SECTION 2(G) OF THE GOONDA ACT,
THE APPROVAL OF THE DETENTION ORDER BEARING REFERENCE
NUMBER HD 316 SST 2026 DATED 15.06.2026 AT ANNEXURE-B
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 3(3) OF
THE GOONDA ACT AND CONFIRMATION ORDER BEARING
REFERENCE NUMBER HD 316 SST 2026 DATED 24.07.2026 AT
ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER
SECTION 13 OF THE GOONDA ACT.
THIS WPHC (HABEAS CORPUS) HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.BHARATH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
The challenge in this Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) is
against a detention order passed under the provisions of the
Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, Slum-Grabbers, and Video/Audio Pirates Act,
1985 ("the 1985 Act" for short). The detention order dated
04.06.2026 is produced as Annexure-A, while the order of
approval passed by respondent No.2 is at Annexure-B and
the confirmation order dated 24.07.2026 is at Annexure-D.
2. We have heard Sri V.S. Hegde, learned counsel
appearing for the writ petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesh,
learned State Public Prosecutor-I along with Smt. Deepthi
Alva, learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondents.
4
3. The detenue- Shri Kadamba S., son of the
petitioner has been detained by respondent No.2 by Order
dated 04.06.2026. The detaining authority recorded its
satisfaction that the detenue is a “goonda” who habitually
commits offences punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII and
XXII of the Indian Penal Code and Chapters VI and XVII of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and that he had to be
detained to prevent him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds
of detention record that a ‘B’ rowdy sheet has been
maintained against him at the Indiranagar Police Station
since 13.05.2024. They rely on thirteen incidents between
2022 and 2026. These comprise of eleven crimes registered
at the Indiranagar and Halasuru Police Stations for house-
breaking and theft, voluntarily causing hurt, robbery and
attempt to murder. Further, the Detention Order records
preventive proceeding in P.A.R.No.18/2026 under Section
129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in
which the detenue was detained in custody for violating the
bond he had executed to keep the peace and maintain good
5
behaviour and Crime No.145/2026 of the Indiranagar Police
Station, registered for robbery allegedly committed on
24.04.2026, which is under investigation. The detaining
authority found that the detenue, with his associates,
randomly targets traders, passers-by and acquaintances,
assaulting them and robbing them of their belongings and
vehicles. It also found that he has repeatedly violated the
conditions of bail granted to him and continued his criminal
activities despite arrest and prosecution, creating fear in the
public mind. The grounds also set out the criminal cases
registered against the detenue’s father and his brother.
According to the respondents, the order of detention and the
grounds of detention, together with the documents relied
upon, were served on the detenue on 04.06.2026 itself. He
was informed of his right to make a representation to the
detaining authority, State Government, and the Advisory
Board.
3. Several grounds have been raised in support of
the challenge in the writ petition. However, the main
grounds urged at the time of argument are to the effect that
6
the actions of the detenue have resulted only in violation of
law and order and that an Order of Preventive Detention
cannot be passed in the said circumstances. Further, it is
contended that detention orders are based on stale
materials. There is no live and proximate link between the
cases relied upon and the detention orders passed because
5 cases are registered during 2025 and one PAR was
registered in 2026 and one Crime was registered in the year
2026. It is settled law that, where the detenue is at liberty
and enlarged on bail in cases that are relied on, the
detaining authority will necessarily have to consider all bail
orders passed in the said cases. Failure of detaining
authorities to consider the bail orders and bail petitions in
those cases vitiates the detention order, hence the detention
orders are passed ignoring vital materials and therefore the
detention orders stand vitiated.
4. Further, it is contended that the detaining
authority has taken into account absolutely irrelevant
material including the criminal antecedents of the detenue's
father and brother, which vitiates the Order of Detention. It
7
is also contended that there is a mention in the statement of
objections to CCTV footage of attacks allegedly committed
by the detenue, but a copy of the said footage is not
provided to the detenue. It is also contended that the full
supporting documents which are referred to in the Order of
Detention have not been made available to the detenue. It is
contended that the paper books furnished by the detaining
authority were not legible and that the detenue was not able
to submit an effective representation, which amounts to a
violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner
places reliance on Pritam Singh v. Union of India
reported in (1995) 57 DLT 370 , to contend that the
detaining authority’s reliance on irrelevant material,
together with its failure to consider relevant material, shows
non-application of mind and vitiates the subjective
satisfaction. In Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad
reported in (2019) 20 SCC 609 , the Apex Court held that
an order of detention against a person in custody can be
passed only if the grounds show that the detaining authority
8
was aware of the custody and was satisfied that the detenue
was likely to be released and, if released, to indulge in
prejudicial activities.
6. Reliance is also placed on the case of Mulla
Afroz v. Union of India reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC
2020 , wherein the Apex Court held that a detention founded
on the very material collected in the criminal investigation,
and passed to keep the detenue in custody despite orders
granting him bail, is punitive and not preventive. It was also
held that the mere existence of multiple criminal cases is not
per se a ground for detention unless it is supported by
cogent and reliable material and that preventive detention
must be invoked with the utmost circumspection. Further
reliance is also placed on Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2576 , to contend that
failure to furnish the detenue with the documents relied on
in the grounds of detention violates his right under Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India to make an effective
representation.
9
7. The learned State Public Prosecutor has placed a
detailed statement of objections on record. It is contended
therein that the detenue was habitually engaging in serious
criminal and antisocial activities and has repeatedly
committed offences including attempt to murder,
housebreaking and theft, assault, criminal intimidation,
robbery, extortion, and violent attacks on members of the
public, thereby disturbing public peace and creating fear and
insecurity among the general public. It is further submitted
that the detenue was involved in 13 criminal cases and that
his name was entered in "B" Rowdy Register and a Rowdy
Sheet bearing No.HAUV/R.S./08/2024 dated 13.05.2024 had
been opened and maintained against him at Indiranagar
Police Station. He was apprehended in further crimes which
were registered by the Indiranagar Police.
8. It is further submitted that even after preventive
proceedings under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, had been taken against the
detenue and he was kept in preventive custody for 15 days
from 20.05.2026 to 03.06.2026, it was apprehended that he
10
would continue his criminal activities. It is submitted that
the entire records relating to the crimes committed by the
detenue including the FIRs, the charge sheets, as well as the
order sheets in the criminal cases and the bail orders, had
all been served on the detenue. The materials are placed on
record before us, and it is stated that the detenue has
clearly written in his own handwriting that he received the
order of detention along with all supporting documents
bearing pages No.1 to 773 on 04.06.2026 itself.
9. It is further submitted that the fact that the
detenue has been enlarged on bail in all the criminal cases
registered against him, has also been duly taken note of by
the detaining authority in the detention order and it has
been clearly stated that, in view of the fact that, the detenue
has been indulging in criminal activities even while on bail,
his preventive detention under the provisions of the 1985
Act is absolutely essential.
10. The learned SPP also submits that apart from
mentioning that his father and brother also have criminal
antecedents, there is no reliance on the criminal history of
11
his father or his brother in the detaining order and the
criminal antecedents of the other members of his family
have not been taken into account for arriving at the
subjective satisfaction that the preventive detention of the
detenue is required in law.
11. The learned SPP has relied on the judgment of
this Court in N. Suresh v. Commissioner of Police,
Bengaluru , passed in Writ petition (Habeas Corpus)
No.53/2025 dated 25.07.2025, filed by the very same
petitioner herein in respect of the detention of his son
Vishnu. The very same grounds have been taken in the writ
petition, which have been specially addressed by this Court.
It is further submitted that the judgment of this Court in
Writ petition (Habeas Corpus) No.53/2025, has been
upheld by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No(s).12744/2025 dated 07.11.2025 .
12. We have considered the contentions advanced. It
is clear that there are 13 cases registered against the
detenue. However, it is clear from the grounds of detention
itself that the detenue was acquitted in the first of the cases
12
and all other offences are either pending investigation or
trial. It is further stated that 7 crimes were committed on
the same day, that is, on 08.02.2025 when the detenue is
alleged to have slashed several persons with a knife at
several locations. Though the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner submits that a CCTV footage is referred to in the
statement of objections and that the non-serving of the copy
of the CCTV footage to the detenue vitiates the order of
detention, we notice that no CCTV footage is referred to in
the order of detention. Since the CCTV footage, which is
later referred to in the statement of objections is not a
material which has been relied on by the detaining authority
to enter the subjective satisfaction as to the need to
preventively detain the detenue, we are of the opinion that
the mentioning of the availability of such footage in the
statement of objections cannot be a ground in favour of the
detenue to state that his order of detention is bad for non-
supply of the same.
13. It is clear that the detenue has obtained bail in
the cases pending against him. The supporting documents
13
served on the detenue would make it clear that the details of
all the criminal cases as well as the orders granting bail to
the detenue have been taken into consideration by the
detaining authority. Copies of all such documents have also
been served on the detenue, who has acknowledged receipt
of the entire documents. The Apex Court in Dimple Happy
Dhakad's case (supra) has clearly held that the fact that
the detenue has been granted bail in the criminal cases
registered against him cannot be a ground for vitiating the
order of detention. This Court in N. Suresh 's case (supra),
considering an identical contention, held that where the
detenue committed breach of the conditions of bail and the
fact that he had been granted bail in all cases and had
continued committing offences by violating the bail
conditions, the order of detention cannot be said to be
:-
vitiated. It was further found that
"26. It is observed that the contravention of law always
affects order, but before it can be set to affect public
order. It must affect the community or public at large as a
disturbance to public order, the specific activity has an
impact on the broader community or the general public,
revoking feelings of fear, panic or insecurity. Accordingly,
the detenu was detained by an order indulging in serious
14
criminal offences such as, murder, attempt to murder,
robbery, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, assault,
house-breaking, theft, voluntarily casuing hurt by
dangerous weapon, wrongful restraint and criminal
intimidation, other offences that have instilled fear and
insecurity on individuals of locality. The petitioner got
released on bail in the criminal cases registered against
him and committed breach of conditions of bail. The
respondents after subjective satisfaction of the materials
placed before them passed the Detention Order. There is
no illegality in the said Orders.
In the instant case, the detaining authority has taken
note of the orders enlarging the detenue on bail.
14. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that irrelevant facts have been taken into
consideration to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that an
order of preventive detention is required to be passed
cannot be accepted in the instant case. It is clearly stated
that the detenue had engaged in several criminal activities,
and has continuously violated bail conditions as well as
bonds executed by him to maintain good behaviour.
15. In the circumstances, on 20.05.2026, an order
was passed detaining him in the Bangalore City Central Jail
15
from 20.05.2026 to 03.06.2026 for a period of 15 days. It is
submitted that it is in view of the severe threat posed by the
detenue to the public order the detaining authority was
satisfied that the detenue would continue his criminal
activities and be a threat to public order. It is in these
circumstances that the order has been passed. The mere
mentioning of the criminal antecedents of the other
members of his family in the order of detention cannot be
taken as a circumstance vitiating the order in the facts of
this case.
16. The further contention that the order of detention
was passed only for 15 days in the first instance is also
factually incorrect, since the detention of 15 days mentioned
in the order is only a reference to the preventive
proceedings under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 taken against the detenue, where
he was kept in preventive custody for 15 days from
20.05.2026 to 03.06.2026.
17. Having considered the contentions, we are of the
opinion that the grounds raised in the writ petition against
16
the order of detention are not substantiated in the instant
case. The writ petition (Habeas Corpus) fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed .
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K.S.BHARATH KUMAR)
JUDGE
PN/cp*