Father’s Bid to Free Son Fails: Karnataka HC Upholds Goonda Act Detention, Citing Repeated Bail Breaches

The petitioner challenged the detention of his son, Kadamba S., under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985 (“Goonda Act”), and the subsequent approval and confirmation orders

The detention order relied on 13 incidents between 2022 and 2026, including offences involving house-breaking, theft, assault, robbery and attempted murder, as well as preventive proceedings under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The detaining authority concluded that the detenue’s repeated criminal activity, including breaches of bail conditions, threatened public order

The petitioner argued that the conduct affected only law and order, that the material was stale, that bail orders and other relevant documents had not been properly considered or supplied, and that irrelevant family antecedents and unsupplied CCTV footage vitiated the detention

The State maintained that the relied-on records, including bail orders, had been considered and supplied to the detenue

Section 3(1) read with Section 2(g) of the Goonda Act permits preventive detention where the statutory conditions are met; the distinction between law and order and public order turns on whether the conduct affects the community or public at large, rather than only the individuals directly involved

Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires that material relied on for detention be supplied so the detenue can make an effective representation; the Court treated the CCTV footage as not requiring supply because it was not relied on by the detaining authority

Relying on Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, (2019) 20 SCC 609, the Court held that the fact of release on bail does not, by itself, invalidate a detention order

It also followed N. Suresh v. Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, W.P. (H.C.) No. 53/2025, particularly on detention where the detenue continued criminal activity in breach of bail conditions

The Court found that the detaining authority had considered the bail orders and that copies of the relevant criminal-case records, including those orders, had been supplied to the detenue.

It accepted the State’s case that the detenue continued criminal activity despite being on bail and having executed bonds to maintain good behaviour, and treated that conduct as supporting the need for preventive detention

The Court rejected the CCTV argument because the footage was not relied on in the detention order; its later mention in the State’s objections did not make non-supply a ground to invalidate detention

Nor did the mention of the father’s and brother’s criminal antecedents vitiate the order, since the Court found no reliance on those antecedents in reaching the subjective satisfaction

It also clarified that the 15-day custody referred to in the order concerned separate preventive proceedings under Section 129 of the BNSS, not the duration of the challenged detention order

It dismissed the habeas corpus petition and declined to quash the detention, approval or confirmation orders