JAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is filed questioning the order of detention dated 11.9.2014 as per Anenxure-A; order dated 22.9.2014 as per Annexure-C and final order of detention dated 21.10.2014 as per Annexure-E, in respect of detenu Sri.Prashantha @ Kariya, S/o Channegowda, aged 28 years, resident of No.86, 2nd Cross, Anjaneya Block, Sheshadri Puram, Bangalore (son of the petitioner herein), under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

(2.) Sri.Hashmath Pasha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the detenu is a vegetable vendor by profession and innocent person. His involvement in four criminal cases is referred as ground of his detention. But he is already acquitted from two criminal cases. He was on bail in the criminal cases cited in the order of grounds of detention, and never violated the conditions of bail order, otherwise the Investigating Officer would have moved for cancellation of his bail order. Recent case registered against him in Crime No.196/2013 of Malleswaram Police Station, in respect of incident of 30.7.2013. Then onwards until detention order was passed on 11.9.2014, nobody complained against him. The grounds supporting the detention order are vague without specifying any particular incident of his involvement. The detention order passed without specifying the period of detention and the confirmation of the said order by the State in extending his period of detention for 12 months w.e.f. 11.9.2014 is against the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, is illegal. Though a Rowdy sheet is said to have been opened against him by Seshadripuram Police in 2009 itself, so far no case is registered by said Police. In none of the criminal cases initiated against him, the prosecution while opposing his bail application has alleged him as goonda. The term "goonda" as defined in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act is not attracted in his case. For passing an order of detention, the authority shall satisfy that, to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudiced to the maintenance of public order, detention order is necessary. The cases registered against him are in respect of offences against individual not against public and in respect of cases of offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. The allegation was about attempt to commit murder which provisions are invoked to fix him in those cases. In the absence of anybody complaining him for the acts of disturbing tempo of public like terrorizing the victims, the detention order is illegal, contrary to the mandates of the Act and also Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned Additional Government Advocate while subscribing to the detention order has filed his objection statement and additional objection statement. Apart from reiterating the grounds of detention, he has further cited 11 criminal cases in which the detenu was involved and seven of said cases ended up in his acquittal. That apart, two cases under Section 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C. are filed against him before District Magistrate. He places his reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court Gulbarga Bench in W.P.No.206009/2014 (GM-RES) D.D. 2nd December 2014 in the matter of Smt.Sangeeta vs- State of Karnataka & Others whereby this Court dismissed the said writ petition on a detailed discussion of entire contentions raised on behalf of the detenu by concluding that detention order is invulnerable.