PAVITHRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the mother of the detenue seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus quashing the detention order dtd. 31/1/2025 passed in No.MAG- 1/01/G.A/MGC/2025 by the respondent No.3, the confirmation order dtd. 6/2/2025 in GO No.HD 56 SST 2025 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order dtd. 5/8/2025 passed in No.M.A.G.1/GA/M/N/2025 passed by the respondent No.3 detaining the detenue in Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Benagluru, for a period of one year beginning from 31/1/2025 under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Trafficking Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Goonda Act').

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the detenue has been detained pursuant to the order of detention passed by the respondent No.3 against the detenue on 31/1/2025 under Sec. 2(g) of the Act for being a habitual offender and repeatedly undertaking activities punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS Act') and in order to prevent him from further engaging himself in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said order was confirmed by the respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 6/2/2025. Being aggrieved by the said order of detention and the consequent confirmation of the said order, this petition is filed by the mother of the detenue.

(3.) Sri.Suyog Herele E, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the facts and grounds of the petition submits that in total, 13 cases have been filed against the detenue, out of which, 8 cases have ended in acquittal. However, the Detaining Authority has not considered the said aspect before recording its subjective satisfaction. It is further submitted that the respondent- Authorities have given several documents in English, without a translation in Kannada and few of the documents are totally illegible, due to which the detenue has been devoid of being able to give an effective representation which violates the right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: