SMT. LALITA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 203135 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LALITA
W/O SURESH ALIAS SAGAR RATHOD,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HANCHINAL LT NO.1,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR-586 112.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL
ADMINISTRATION (PRISON AND CINEMA),
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-01.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
VIJAYPUR-586 101.
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIJAYPUR-586 101.
4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIJAYPUR SUB-DIVISION,
VIJAYPUR-586 101.
5. THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
GOLGUMBAZ POLICE STATION,
VIJAYPUR-586 101.
6. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR (L & O),
ADARSH NAGAR POLICE STATION,
VIJAYPURA-586103
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADDL.SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, I) 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 11-04-2026 IN CASE
BEARING NO. RB/MAG/GOONDA ACT/ CR-2/2026-27 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF DETENUE SRI. SURESH @
SAGAR S/O LAXMAN RATHOD. II) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THE
ST
NATURE OF WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1
RESPONDENT BEARING NO.HD 248 SST 2026 DATED
21.05.2026 AS PER ANNEXURE-F CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF
ND
DETENTION PASSED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL
AND VOID. III) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS
HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN TO GRANT UNDER THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 12.10.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J. , MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner-Smt. Lalita
who is the wife of detenue Sri Suresh @ Sagar Rathod, to
quash the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 21.05.2026
vide Annexure-F.
2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of the present
writ petition are as follows:
It is the case of the petitioner that Suresh Kumar Rathod
was taken into custody by detention order dated 11.04.2026.
The said detention order is called in question on various
grounds before this Court. Though a number of grounds have
been taken, but the grounds urged before this Court by the
petitioners are that the sponsoring authority has withheld the
several information of the detenue and other relevant
documents which could have weighed in the mind of the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
detenue authority while passing the impugned orders. It is also
relevant to submit that the sponsoring authority has not
furnished the bail orders, wherein the detention was enlarged
on bail in the cases registered against him resulting in
suppression of relevant material facts. On account of non-
furnishing of bail orders in the proposal submitted by the
sponsoring authority before the detention authority has vitiated
the order of detention in as much as the same were not part of
the proposal and that the detention authority was impaired due
to their absence and consequently resulting in passing of order
without application of mind. The above materials have been
withheld willfully in order to mislead the detaining authority.
The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 completely
lacks application of mind. Respondent No.2 has not raised any
points for consideration, has not assigned any reasons much
less valid reasons while passing the impugned order. The
detention authority has merely referred to the number of cases
pending against the detention and without arriving at a
subjective satisfaction whether they could form the basis of
passing order of detention has mechanically passed the order
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The respondents
have committed a grave error in law in taking into
consideration old cases which ended in the acquittal while
passing order of preventive detention. It is contended that the
impugned order of detention is in violation of Section 3 of the
Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of the
Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral
Traffic offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video and Audio Pirates
Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act of 1985’). Respondent No.2 has
not specified the period/duration of the order of detention
which is against the spirit of Section 3 of the Act of 1985. It is
contended that the impugned order of preventive detention is
totally in violation of the provisions of the Act. As per Section
10 of the Act of 1985, respondent No.1 has to place the
grounds of detention order, representation if any and the report
of the officer under Section 3(3) of the Act of 1985 before the
Advisory Board within three weeks. Respondent No.1 has not
followed the said procedure. Hence, on these grounds, the
order of detention is violated by serious incurable defects and
same is liable to be quashed.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
3. The State has filed the statement of objections
contending that the invocation of the provisions of the
Karnataka Goonda Act is made after reasonable assessment of
the criminal background of the detenue Suresh. The detenue
has involved in 14 cases and is indulged in supply and
smuggling of illegal arms like Country made pistols and Bullets.
Apart from such criminal activities has along with his gang has
created an atmosphere of fear and terror in the public at large
and often has resorted to extorting money from the public and
his movements are detrimental to the wellbeing of the society.
A rowdy sheet was also opened against him, as per the order of
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura on 23.04.2025
at Vijayapura Rural Police Station, and the sponsoring authority
has given sound reasoning while passing an order of detention
and same was approved by the Government and the Advisory
Board. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the order passed by the respondent No.2 as well as
confirmed by the Government are illegal and they are contrary
to the provisions of the Goondas Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
1923’). In terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
and Section 8 of the Act of 1923, it is mandatory to furnish the
detenue not only the order of detention but also the grounds of
detention and the supporting documents relied upon by the
detaining authority. Further, the Government cannot detain a
person under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 for an
indefinite period, as such detention is contrary to Section 3 of
the Act of 1923. The Government did not placed the material
before the advisory board within three weeks and copies of the
relevant documents were not supplied to the detenue.
Therefore, he was unable to make a representation before the
competent authority. He also submitted that the mere fact that
criminal cases are pending against the detenue is not a ground
for passing an order preventive detention. Some cases are
pending for trial, while others are pending for investigation.
Hence, the detention order passed by the Government is illegal
and to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the
order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of
S RI S ANGAMESH S/ O G URUPAD M UDANGI V S . THE S TATE OF
ARNATAKA AND OTHERS IN O
K W.P.N .202165/2026 , in the case
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
of J ASEELA S HAJI V S . U NION OF I NDIA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN
AIR 2024 SC 4721, in the case of S MT . I CCHU D EVI C HORARIA
S NION OF NDIA AND OTHERS RI
V . U I reported in 1981 SCC (C .)
25 , in the case of A MEENA B EGUM V S . S TATE OF T ELANGANA AND
OTHERS reported in AIR 2023 SC 4273 , in the case of R EKHA
S TATE OF AMIL ADU
V . S T N reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 ,
R OSHINI D EVI V S . S TATE OF T ELANGANA AND OTHERS reported in
AIR 2026 SC 656 and N ENAVATH B UJJI E TC ., V S . S TATE OF
T ELANGANA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2024 SC 1610 . Hence,
on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Learned Additional SPP submits that, respondent
No. 2 had opened a rowdy sheet at Vijayapura Rural Police
Station to monitor his criminal activities. He submits that the
detaining authority, after careful consideration, was satisfied
that the ordinary penal laws were insufficient to curb the
detenue’s criminal conduct. Therefore, in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act of 1923, a
detention order dated 11.04.2026 was issued as a preventive
measure to ensure the maintenance of the public order. The
detenue continued to indulge in criminal activities, exhibited a
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
habitual tendency towards criminal conduct and failed to
reform. The detenu’s continuous criminal activities posed a real
and imminent threat to the public and necessitated preventive
detention. He submits that the sponsoring authorities have
followed all the procedures prescribed under the Act of 1923.
The charges alleged against the detenue are in serious in
nature. The detenue was released on bail in some of the
criminal cases registered against him and committed breach of
the bail conditions. There is no illegality in the detention order.
Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the detenue has been
involved in 14 criminal cases in the charge which reads as
follows:
Sl.NO Police Station Case number & Present stage of the case
section
1 Adarsh Nagar
90/2022 Section
143,147,148,323,
324,307,504,
506,149 IPC.
This case was heard in the
Hon'ble as the Court in SC
No. 50/2024 and was
discharged on 02.03.2026
Police Station
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
plaintiff and witnesses given
contradictory statements.
(Page No-39-76)
2. Adarsh Nagar
95/2022 /Section 25
[1] (A) Indian Arms
Act 1959
This case is being heard in
the Hon'ble Court in CC
No.887/2023 and the next
date of hearing is on 16-05-
2026. (Page No-77-113)
Police Station
3. Rural Police Station 40/2025 Section
Vijayapura 103(1) R/w 3(5)
BNS 2023 & Sec
25(A) 27(3), 29(B)
Indian Arms Act
1959
This case is being heard in
the Hon'ble Court in SC
No.7/2026 and the next date
of hearing is on 21-04-2026.
(Page No-114-234)
This case was heard in the
Hon'ble Court in CC
No.3604/2025 and was
transfered to the Hon'ble
4. Rural Police Station 73/2025 Section
Vijayapura 132, 109(1) BNS
2023
District Sessions Court
Vijayapura on 28-02-2026.
(Page No-235-295)
This case is being heard in
the Hon'ble Court CC
No.418/2026 and the next
date of hearing is on 25-05-
2026.
5. Tikota Police Station 12/2025 Section
25(1A) 25(1)(A),
29(B), 29(A) Indian
arms Act 1959.
(Page No-296-352)
6. Adarh Nagar
18/2025 Section
25(1A) 25(1)(A),
29(A), 29(B) Indian
arms Act 1959.
This case is still under
investigation.
Police Station
(Page No-353-355)
7. Jalnagar Police
23/2025 Section
25(1A) 25(1)(A),
29(A), 29(B) Indian
arms Act 1959.
This case is still under
investigation.
Station
(Page No-356-358)
8. BasavanBagewadi 51/2025 Section
Police Station 25(1A) 25(1)(A),
29(A), 29(B) Indian
This case was heard in the
Hon'ble Court in CC
No.179/2026 and was
transferred to the Hon'ble
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
arms Act 1959. District Sessions Court
Vijayapura on 23-03-2026.
(Page No-359-427)
9. Sindagi Police
52/2025/Section
25(1A) 25(1)(A),
29(A), 29(B) Indian
arms Act 1959.
This case is being heard in
the Hon’ble Court CC
No.7631/2025 and the next
hearing date is 19-05-2026.
Station
(Page No-428-459).
10. Rural Police Station 81/2025 Section
Vijayapura 25(1A) 25(1)(A),
29(1), 29(B)
This case is being heard in
the Hon'ble Court CC
No.12080/2025 and the next
date of hearing is 02-06-
2026.
Indian arms Act
1959.
(Page No-460-469)
11. Rural Police Station 82/2025 Section
Vijayapura 25(1A) 25(1)(A),
29(A), 29(B)
This case is being heard in
the Hon'ble Court CC
No.12081/2025 and the next
date of hearing is on 02-06-
2026.
Indian arms Act
1959.
(Page No-490-521)
This case is being heard in
the Hon'ble Court CC
No.16567/2025 and the next
hearing date is 09-06-2026.
12. Rural Police Station 83/2025 Section
Vijayapura 25(1A) 25(1)(A),
29(A), 29(B)
Indian arms Act
1959.
(Page No-522-570)
13. Rural Police Station 84/2025 Section
Vijayapura 25(1A) 25(1)(A),
29(A), 29(B)
This case is being heard in
the Hon'ble Court CC
No.12111/2025 and the next
hearing date is 02-06-
2026.
Indian arms Act
1959.
(Page No-571-603)
14. Adarh Nagar Police 123/2025
Station Section126(2),
115(2), 109(1). 351
(2), 352 BNS-2023
This case is still under
investigation
(Page No-604-606)
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
8. As could be seen from the detention order dated
11.04.2026 as many as 14 grounds are considered by the
detaining authority in order to detain the detenue in jail. It is
worth to refer to the cumulative opinion of the detaining
authority in keeping the detenue in jail at page No.1 in English
version of the detention order, it is stated that:
“you have been involved in criminal cases,
including serious criminal acts such as murder, attempt to
murder and the offence in the Indian Arms Act. You are
involved in illegal activities without fear. You form a group
of 6-8 youngsters and go around inciting fear among
people, committing murders and attempt to murders and
have committed a serious crime by being involved in
serious criminal acts. You have created fear and terror
among innocent people through your goonda activities
and anti-social acts. Due to this, it is not possible to
suppress your goonda activities under the general law.
Therefore, it is necessary to detain you under Section
3(1) of the Act of 1985.
A rowdy sheet is opened as per the orders of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura Rural Sub-
Division by Order No: DSP/VJP/Rural/404/2025 dated
23.04.2025 to monitor and control your criminal
activities. Since then, a rowdy sheet is being maintained
at Vijayapura Rural Police Station. In addition to this
considering the following criminal acts committed by you
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
from 2022 to 2025 an order of detention under the
Karnataka Goondas Act dated 11.04.2026 has been
passed to keep you in preventive detention.”
9. After quoting the grounds the detaining authority
after examining the reports and material placed before it, it has
come to the conclusion that in view of the anti-social activities,
sense of insecurity has been created in the area of the city.
Thus, it is certain that if the detenue is allowed to move free,
he will continue to indulge in the anti-social activities like
committing a murder, attempt to murder. Therefore, on the
above said grounds the detaining authority has passed the
detention order.
10. This Court cannot go into the details of the factual
aspects on the basis of which the detaining authority satisfied
itself as to the existence of sufficient grounds for detention.
Nevertheless, this Court can certainly delve into the legal
aspects raised before it. The only ground raised by the
petitioner is that the copies of the bail orders were not
furnished to the detenue along with the documents and the
sponsoring authority had not followed the procedure prescribed
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
under the Act of 1923. With regard to the furnishing of the
copies of the bail orders.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of A BDUL S ATHAR
BRAHIM ANIK TC S NION F NDIA ND RS
I M E V . U O I A O . reported in
1992(1) SCC 1, observed as follows at para No.6:
(6) In a case where detenu is released on bail and is
at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention,
then the detaining authority has to necessarily rely upon
them as that would be a vital ground for ordering
detention. In such a case the bail application and the order
granting bail should necessarily be placed before the
authority and the copies should also be supplied to the
detenu.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M. A HAMEDKUTTY
VS U NION O F I NDIA & A NR . reported in ( 1990)2 SCC 1 has
observed at para 20 which reads as follows:
“It is immaterial whether the detenu already knew
about their contents or not. In Mehrunissa v. State of
Maharashtra, [(1981)2 SCC 709, it was held that the fact
that the detenu was aware of the contents of the
documents not furnished was immaterial and non-
furnishing of the copy of the seizure list was held to be
fatal. To appreciate this point one has to bear in mind that
the detenu is in jail and has no access to his own
documents. In Mohd. Zakir v. Delhi Administration, [1982]
3 SCC 216 it was reiterated that it being a Constitutional
imperative for the detaining authority to give the
documents relied on and referred to in the order of
detention pari passue the grounds of detention, those
should be furnished at the earliest so that the detenu could
make an effective representation immediately instead of
waiting for the documents to be supplied with. The
question of demanding the documents was wholly
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
irrelevant and the infirmity in that regard was violative of
Constitutional safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. From the perusal of the judgments referred to
above, it is evident that, irrespective of the knowledge of the
contents of the documents or the facts relied upon or recorded
therein, copies of such documents must be furnished to the
detenue by the detaining authority.
13. In another judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of R USHIKESH T ANAJI B HOITE V S . S TATE OF M AHARASHTRA
AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2012 SC 890 held at para No.9,
which reads as follows:
“In a case where detenu is released on bail and is
enjoying his freedom under the order of the court at the
time of passing the order of detention, then such order of
bail, in our opinion, must be placed before the detaining
authority to enable him to reach at the proper
satisfaction.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. From the perusal of the judgment referred above is
with regard to the strict compliance of law by detaining
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
authority. From the perusal of the records it clearly mandates
that the detaining authority has the legal obligation of serving
the grounds of detention and to ensure that they are in the
language known to the detenue which can be easily understand
as to the grounds of the detention taken against him and the
documents relied upon and referred to by detaining authority.
The detaining authority is required to comply with the said legal
requirements.
15. In order to consider the case on hand, it is
necessary to examine Sections 3, 9 to 13 of the Act of 1985,
which reads as under:
Section 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 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 of Commissioner of
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
police may also is 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-
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.
Section 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.
Section 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
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
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.
Section 12 - Action upon report of Advisory
Board
(1) In any case where the Advisory Board has
reported that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for
the detention of a person, the State Government may
confirm the detention order and continue the detention of
the person concerned for such period, not exceeding the
maximum period specified in section 13, as they think fit.
(2) In any case where the Advisory Board has
reported that there is, in its opinion, no sufficient cause
for the detention of the person concerned, the State
Government shall revoke the detention order and cause
the person to be released forthwith.
Section 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 confirmed under section 12 shall be twelve months
from the date of detention.
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
16. A bare reading of Section 10 of the Act of 1985
clearly discloses that the detention order made by the State
Government shall be placed before the Advisory Board. The
procedure to be followed by the Advisory Board is that Board
shall consider the materials placed before it, and if satisfied
with the grounds of detention, examine the materials and if
necessary, call for information from the State Government or
any other person. The Advisory Board may confirm the
detention order under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act of 1985
and Section 13 of the Act of 1985 provides the maximum
period of detention is 12 months from the date of detention.
Admittedly, from the perusal of the detention order, it does not
indicate regarding the period of detention. It clearly discloses
that the detention is for an indefinite period, which is in
violation of Section 3(3) and Section 13 of the Act of 1985.
17. Admittedly, in the instant case, the sponsoring
authority has not furnished copies of the bail orders, which is
contrary to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
(referred to supra).
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
18. Thus, from the perusal of the records, it is clear
that the sponsoring authority has not furnished copies of the
bail orders to the detenue, he would have been in a position to
make submissions in that regard. Considering the propositions
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (referred to supra), we are
of opinion that the detention order vitiates the constitutional
provisions under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the detention
order passed by the detaining authority is illegal and void ab
initio.
19. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is allowed .
ii. The detenue, Suresh @ Sagar Rathod, husband
of petitioner, is hereby directed to be released
forthwith.
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11653-DB
WP No. 203135 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030082022026
iii. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of
this order by email forthwith to the
Superintendent of the Central Prison,
Mangaluru.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
SSB
CT:PK