CHANDRU Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of detention dated 10.12.2015 vide Annexure-'A' and the consequent orders of confirmation dated 17.12.2015 vide Annexure-'B', dated 12.1.2016 vide Annexure-'C and dated 3.3.2016 vide Annexure-'D' are questioned in this writ petition by the detenue himself. The grounds of detention are served on the petitioner along with the detention orders; the grounds of detention as well as the detention orders are both in Kannada as well as in English languages. The grounds of detention reveal that there are totally eight cases are registered against the petitioner and out of such eight cases, he is acquitted in three cases. The two of the Session Cases arising out of Crime No. 173/2012 of East Police Station, Mangalore and Crime No. 83/2015 of Urwa Police Station, Mangalore are pending consideration before the respective Session Courts. The other three matters are arising out of Section 107 of Cr.P.C. i.e., relating to keeping peace in the locality. Out of such three cases arising out of Section 107 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has executed a bond for keeping peace in two cases i.e., Crime Nos. 90/2013 and 68/2014 and another Session Case i.e. Crime No. 66/2015 of Urwa Police Station is still pending consideration. In the aforementioned two crimes i.e., Crime Nos. 173/2012 and 83/2015, the petitioner is on bail. The State has not filed any application for cancellation of bail before the Higher Courts. So also, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has violated the conditions imposed on him at the time of releasing him on bail. Had the petitioner violated any of the conditions imposed on him at the time of releasing him on bail, the State would have definitely filed the application for cancellation of bail, which means the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions of the bail order. Despite the same, it is mentioned in the order of detention that the petitioner has got the tendency to abscond. Since there is no material to show that the petitioner has absconded after releasing him on bail, such observation made by the Detaining Authority in the order of detention that the petitioner has got tendency of abscondence, is erroneous.

(2.) Added to it, it is mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is in custody in some criminal cases and in case, if he is released on bail, he may indulge in similar activities, which are detrimental to the public order. Though such observations are made by the Detaining Authority that the petitioner is in custody in some criminal cases, the Detaining Authority has not at all mentioned the case numbers, the sections under which the petitioner is being prosecuted in such cases and the Court, in which the same are pending consideration.

(3.) In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is justified in arguing that it is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority, inasmuch as he has not at all mentioned the case numbers, the offences of which the detenue is being faced and the matter in which he is in custody. Since the said factor is relied upon by the Detaining Authority, he should have been more specific in divulging the details of the cases, in which the petitioner is stated to be in custody. Hence, in our considered opinion, the order of detention as well as the orders of confirmation suffers from non-application of mind of the Detaining Authority and the same are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order is made: