Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 776 (KAR)

Kalavathi v. State of Karnataka

2015-07-17

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, R.B.BUDHIAL

body2015
ORDER : 1. The order of detention dated 14-5-2015 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore vide Annexure-A as confirmed by the Government of Karnataka on 18-6-2015 vide Annexure-B, are called in question in this writ petition. 2. The records reveal that the order of preventive detention is passed against the detenue, i.e. son of the petitioner by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore on 14-5-2015 vide Annexure-A by exercising jurisdiction vestedin him under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1985 (Act for short). The grounds of detention were served on the detenue on the very day, i.e. on 14-5-2015. It seems, representation is also made by the detenue. Ultimately, after passing through the Advisory Board, the papers were placed before the Government of Karnataka, which has confirmed the order of detention under Sections 12(1) and 13 of the Act as per Annexure-B, dated 18-6-2015. 3. The grounds of detention disclose that as many as 22 criminal cases were lodged against the detenue from the year 2006 till the year 2015. The first offence committed by the detenue was on 25-11-2006 and the last offence committed by him is on 6-2-2015. Out of 22 criminal cases enlisted in the grounds of detention, the detenue is acquitted in 12 cases. He is facing either the investigation or the trial in remaining 10 cases. In all these remaining 10 cases, the detenue is released on bail by the jurisdictional Criminal Courts. 4. We find from the cases enlisted in the grounds of detention that, except one criminal case, i.e. Crime No. 96 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 511 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, all other cases are not proximate to the date of detention. In 20 cases, the crimes have been allegedly committed prior to 6-9-2013. As aforementioned, the detention order is dated 14-5-2015 which means, all those 20 crimes allegedly committed by the detenue are two years prior to the date of detention. 21st crime, i.e. Crime No. 521 of 2014 is committed by the detenue on 8-10-2014 i.e. seven months prior to the date of detention. However, the last crime, i.e. 22nd crime allegedly committed by the detenue is on 6-2-2015, which is about three months prior to the date of detention. 21st crime, i.e. Crime No. 521 of 2014 is committed by the detenue on 8-10-2014 i.e. seven months prior to the date of detention. However, the last crime, i.e. 22nd crime allegedly committed by the detenue is on 6-2-2015, which is about three months prior to the date of detention. Thus, at the most, it can be said that 22nd crime has got proximity to the detention order. 5. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2012 SC 890 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri.) 693 : 2012 Cri. L.J. 1334 (SC) : 2012 AIR SCW 677 : (2012) 2 SCC 72 , when a person is enlarged on bail by a Competent Court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinising the validity of an order of preventive detention which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the Criminal Court. In the said matter, offences referred to in the order of detention suffer from remoteness and want of proximity to the order of detention. The Apex Court under the facts and circumstances of that case, proceeded to quash the order of detention on the said grounds. In the present matter also, we find that out of 22 criminal cases, the detenue is acquitted in 12 cases and he is enlarged on bail in remaining 10 cases. Except one offence referred to in the order of detention, all other cases suffer from remoteness and want of proximity to the order of detention. Hence, we are satisfied that the order of detention cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside in view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the matter cited supra. Accordingly, the following order is made:- The impugned order of detention dated 14-5-2015 vide Annexure-A and the order of confirmation dated 18-6-2015 vide Annexure-B, stand quashed. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.