SRINIVASA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is questioning the correctness of the order dated 10.02.2014 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in No. MAG(1).CR.62/31476/2013 -14 produced at Annexures A and B, Confirmation Order of Detention dated 17.02.2014 passed by the 1st respondent in G.O. No. HD 61 SST 2014 produced at Annexure 'E'. The extension of Order of Detention dated 28.03.2014 passed by the 1st Respondent in G.O. No. HD 61 SST 2014 at Annexure 'F' and direct the 5th respondent to release the detenue, Sri V. Madhu @ Kaddi @ Doddi @ Naveen V. S/o. Varadaraj.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case on hand are that the petitioner is the younger brother of detenue Sri V. Madhu @ Kaddi @ Doddi @ Naveen V. S/o. Varadaraj who has been detained under Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drugs offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, immoral Traffic offenders and Slum -Grabbers Act 1985. Since the detenue is unable to approach this Court challenging his illegal detention, the petitioner being the younger brother of detenue has filed this writ petition contending that his brother has been taken to custody on 10.02.2014 as per the detention order dated 10.02.2014 vide Annexures 'A' and 'B' on the ground that the detenue, by joining hands with other rowdy elements has been accused of being involved in committing many heinous offences i.e., robbery, dacoity and his conduct is prejudicial to the maintenance to the public order and the detaining authority has relied on 16 cases registered in Doddapet Police Station, Shimoga for various offences and that he was in judicial and police custody on different occasions for a cumulative period of more than 270 days. On the basis of the above materials and as the detenue has been involved in illegal activities and as charges against him are serious in nature and though he was in judicial custody, he has not stopped his criminal activities and therefore to prevent his illegal activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, there was no other option except to pass the appropriate detention order and the said order has been confirmed by the detention authorities and the Government by its Order dated 28.03.2014, extended the detention for a period of 12 months from the date of detention order i.e., 10.02.2014.

(3.) THE principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset is that the impugned detention order, confirmation order and the extension of detention order passed by the competent authorities cannot be sustained are liable to be set aside in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in : AIR 2012 Supreme Court 890.