MALLIKARJUN Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parents of Teek Raj have filed this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus alleging that on false allegations, due to political rivalry and also on account of instigation of persons who were inimical to their son, Teek Raj has been illegally detained by the respondents.

(2.) The Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Raichur, has passed the detention order dated 01.03.2014 exercising his power under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drugoffenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slub-Grabbers Act, 1985, (for short the Act ) on the basis of allegations that he was involved in as many as 16 criminal cases and was engaging himself in activities which were detrimental to the peace in the area and that he had become a serious threat for maintaining law and order. Allegations made against the detenu were regarding his involvement in gambling, matka activities and terrorizing people in the area, thereby, disturbing public peace. The order of detention was passed on 01.03.2010. The said order was approved by the State Government on 10.03.2014. The matter was sent for the opinion of the Advisory Board and after approval of the Advisory Board and upon the request made by the Deputy Commissioner, the detention order was confirmed for a period of twelve months vide order dated 11.04.2014. Petitioner had made a representation on 06.03.2014 requesting to release him inter alia stating that he had been acquitted in 14 out of the 16 cases and was enlarged on bail in the other two cases. The said representation was rejected by the police by issuing endorsement dated 15.04.2014. In this background, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order of detention.

(3.) It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is absolutely no reason to keep the detenu in custody on the basis of allegations made and the grounds stated in the order of detention, particularly because the detenu was acquitted in 14 cases and in the remaining 2 cases, he was on bail. It is submitted that copy of the decision of the Advisory Board was not served on the detenu. It is also further contended that wife of the detenu was on her family way and was likely to deliver a baby and at such point of time, the illegal detention has resulted in serious mental agony to the members of the family.