VEENA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

(2.) The petitioner is said to be the wife of one Sri Rajnikant Bijawad son of Sri Kashappa Bijawad who is the detenue in the present case. The petitioner and her husband are permanent residents of Veerapur Oni, Settlement, Near T.K. Habib Mill, Hubballi. The detenue is residing with his father, two younger brothers, two wives; one is petitioner and another is Smt. Bhuvaneshwari and they have two male children. It is the case of the respondents that the detenue started real estate business and he was indulging in criminal activities since the year 2000 and he was involved in cases of attempt to murder, rioting, assault, extortion of money, criminal intimidation and threatening innocent people and witnesses etc., It was further alleged that he was involved in five cases namely Cr. No. 199/2010 registered in Hubballi Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 302 amongst other provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC, for brevity), Cr. No. 163/2013 registered in Kasabapeth Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 504, 506(1) read with Section 149 of the IPC, Cr. No. 189/2006 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 506, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, in Hubballi Town Police Station, Cr. No. 19/2000 registered in Bendigeri Police Station, Hubballi, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and other provisions of the IPC, Cr. No. 231/2014 registered in Sub Urban Police Station, Hubballi, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 384 etc., of the IPC, as well as Section 66(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

(3.) Further, it was the allegation of the respondents that a rowdy sheet was opened against the detenue as early as in the year 2004 before the Bendigeri Police Station, Hubballi, on the ground that by such criminal activities, the detenue was disturbing public order. It was further alleged that he was released on bail but he had violated the bail conditions and was indulging in anti social activities adversely affecting the public peace and order.