ASFIYA BANU AGED 28 YEARS, W/O NAWAZ NO. 17, 7TH CROSS, SOMESHWARA NAGARA I BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011 Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE- 560 001, STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SECRETARY HOME AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner is the wife of one Nawaz @ Nayaz @ Nawab who has been detained in the Central Prison, Parapana Agrahara, Bangalore, ever since 19.07.2011 on which date the first respondent - the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City has passed an order for preventative detention of the said Nawaz as the detaining authority, as he was of the opinion that he fits into the description of a 'goonda' within the meaning of this word as defined under Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (Karnataka Act No.12 of 1985) (for short 'the Act') and having regard to his past conduct and the propensity for indulging in criminal activities constituting various offences mentioned in Chapter 16, 17 and 22 of the Indian Penal Code and having passed an order for his detention in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act.

(2.) The wife of the detenue has presented this petition for issue of a writ or Habeas Corpus inter alia urging the grounds such as, that the order of detention is vitiated for more than one reason; due to the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority; that the detenue has not been given a proper opportunity to make an effective representation, in the sense, he has not been made aware of his legal rights for seeking revocation of the order as is provided not only under the provisions of this Act but also constituting a violation of the safeguard provided under Sub Article (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India; that the authority has taken stale incidents into consideration for passing an order of detention, which vitiates the order; that the authority having placed reliance in respect of 10 incidents, for all of which incidents, the police have registered criminal cases and some matters are now pending trial before the competent Court, but having not furnished the relevant material based on which the order is passed relating to these 10 incidents and the cases registered in respect of all these incidents and such non-furnishing has prevented the detenue from making an effective representation for his release and therefore, the order is initiated etc.,

(3.) Notice had been issued of this writ petition to the respondents. All three respondents are represented by Sri. Indiresha, learned High Court Government Pleader. Statement of objections is also filed on behalf of these respondents supported by the affidavit of Gopal, Under Secretary to Government, Home Department (Law and Order) urging for dismissal of the writ petition etc.,