GAYATHRI Vs. POLICE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is mother of the detenue namely Sukesh alias Suki, has assailed the validity of the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police dated 13.12.2019 as well as the order dated 24.01.2020 which has been affirmed by the State Government under the provisions of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and also Video and Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to release the detenu forthwith in case he is not required in connection with any other offence.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is the mother of the detenue namely Sukesh (hereinafter referred to as detenue). The detenue was arrested on 23.10.2019 by Kumaraswamy layout police station in connection with Crime No.292/2019 for the offences under Section 364A, 384, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, nine cases were registered against the detenue. A report was submitted to the Commissioner of Police. Thereupon, an order of detention dated 13.12.2019 was served on the petitioner along with the grounds of detention and relevant material. The detenue was informed about his right to submit a representation. The detenue thereupon submitted a representation which was duly considered and the order passed by the detaining authority was confirmed by the State Government by an order dated 24.01.2020. In the aforesaid factual background, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that grounds referred to in the order of detention are factually incorrect and the order of detention was passed when the detenue was already in judicial custody. Since the detenue was in judicial custody, therefore, the order of detention could not have been passed. It is also pointed out that the detenue was not supplied with the legible copies of the documents and has been deprived of the right to submit the representation in an effective manner. It is also pointed out that the detenue has never violated any conditions of bail otherwise the respondents would have sought cancellation of bail granted to the detenue. It is also contended that in criminal cases the detenue has falsely been implicated and in some cases, his name has been later on inserted. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHAW Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BURDWAN AND ORS. AIR 1964 SC 334, 'MERUGU SATYANARAYANA ETC. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.' AIR 1982 SC 1543, and decision of this Court dated 29.10.2014 passed in WPHC No.129/2014 (Smt.Susheelamma Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary and others).