RAKSHITHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the wife of the detenue seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the detention order dtd. 29/8/2025 passed in No.MAG- 300/2025-26 by the Respondent No. 2 and the confirmation order dtd. 10/10/2025 in H.D. 472 SST 2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 and to further writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to set the detenue at liberty by releasing him from prison.

(2.) 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.2 against the detenue on 29/8/2025 under Sec. 2(g) 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 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') and in order to prevent him from further engaging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said order was confirmed by the respondent No.1 vide order dtd. 10/10/2025. Being aggrieved by the said order of detention and the consequent confirmation of the said order, this petition is filed by the wife of the detenue.

(3.) Sri. B.Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the facts and grounds of petition submits that various documents submitted to the detenue are illegible copies, which violate the right guaranteed to the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to give effective presentation. It is further submitted that the respondents, without considering the order of bail in Crime No.29/2025, which was passed prior to the detention order, have considered the detenue to be absconding, which amounts to consideration of irrelevant material. It is submitted that though he has raised other grounds in the writ petition to attack the order of detention, he restricts his submissions to the aforesaid ground. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition and set the detenue free.