Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 76 (KAR)

Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka

2016-01-21

K.N.PHANEENDRA, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2016
ORDER : Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J. 1. The order of detention dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru City, against Mr. Shabarisha @ Appi, (son of the petitioner-Smt. Lakshmi and Sri. Mohan @ Swamy), is called in question in this writ petition. 2. The grounds of detention of Shabarish @ Appi are also supplied along with the Order of Detention. The impugned Order of Detention discloses that, the detenue discontinued his studies at VIII Standard and cultivated bad characters at the very early age and got addicted to bad habits. When he was aged about 19 years, he started indulging in criminal activities and a rowdy sheet was opened against him in Yelahanka Police Station, on 19.03.2014. 3. Sri. G. Jairaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that, though the Detaining Authority has relied upon the charge sheets submitted in 12 crimes registered against the petitioner in three police stations, they are all false; The detenue is innocent; In none of the said Criminal Cases, the petitioner was involved; He has been falsely implicated. The sum and substance of the contentions of the petitioner's counsel is that, the Detention Order violates Article 22 of the Constitution of India in as much as the Detention Order revolves around the allegations which are not supported by the documents. He further submits that though the grounds of detention reveal that certain recoveries are made from the detenue in certain crimes, in fact, in none of the matters recovery of any of the properties is made from the detenue. There is no sufficient material to invoke the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offences and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (for short, 'Act'). The learned counsel for the petitioner took us to each of the charge sheets submitted against the detenue which are relied upon by the Detaining Authority and contends that the detenue has no role to play in any of the crimes. Per contra, Sri. Indiresh, learned Government Advocate argued in support of the Detention Order contending that, the preventive detention of the detenue is absolutely necessary to safeguard the interest of the public at large; The Detaining Authority keeping in mind the interest of the Society at large, more particularly, children and the ladies, has passed the order of detention. 4. Per contra, Sri. Indiresh, learned Government Advocate argued in support of the Detention Order contending that, the preventive detention of the detenue is absolutely necessary to safeguard the interest of the public at large; The Detaining Authority keeping in mind the interest of the Society at large, more particularly, children and the ladies, has passed the order of detention. 4. The grounds of detention supplied to the detenue revolve around 12 cases registered against the detenue. In order to see the correctness of the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it proper to consider the materials collected by the Investigating Officer in each of the 12 cases relied upon by the Detaining Authority. (a) Crime No. 297/2012 is registered in Sanjay Nagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. It is alleged in the charge sheet that at about 8.35 p.m. on 10.08.2012, the detenue and his associates have committed theft of a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KA.05.R.1936, which was parked in front of Mayur Hotel, BEL Road, Sanjay Nagar. The detenue was arrested on 03.12.2012 and the aforementioned motor cycle was seized at the behest of the detenue. The charge sheet clearly reveals that the recovery of motorcycle is made based on the voluntary statement of the detenue. (b) Crime No. 123/2013 was registered under Section 392 of IPC in Yelahanka Police Station. In the grounds of detention it is stated that, he and his associate Jaffer have snatched the gold chain from the complainant when she was going on the road near her house on 27.04.2013 around 12.45 p.m. It is also mentioned in the Detention Order that the gold chain pertaining to Crime No. 123/2013 is recovered from the detenue. The said observations made by the Detaining Authority in respect of Crime No. 123/2013 relating to recovery of gold chain is factually erroneous. The complaint lodged in Crime No. 123/2013 clearly reveals that only one person came near the complainant and a gold chain was snatched from her by sole accused. However, the crime came to be registered against four persons namely, Renuka, Seema, Jaffer and the detenue. The gold chain is recovered jointly from Renuka, Seema and Jaffer, all from Bhadravathi in Shivamogga District. There was no recovery made from the detenue. The charge sheet further reveals that the detenue was an absconding accused. However, the crime came to be registered against four persons namely, Renuka, Seema, Jaffer and the detenue. The gold chain is recovered jointly from Renuka, Seema and Jaffer, all from Bhadravathi in Shivamogga District. There was no recovery made from the detenue. The charge sheet further reveals that the detenue was an absconding accused. (c) The Crime No. 230/2013 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC in Yelahanka Police Station is also relied upon by the Detaining Authority. The grounds of detention reveal that the gold chain pertaining to Crime No. 230/2013 is recovered from the detenue on 24.01.2014 after his arrest. Such an observation made in the grounds of detention is also erroneous inasmuch as the recovery of the gold chain was only from Accused No. 1-Jaffer. The detenue was Accused No. 2 and from Accused No. 2 (detenue), no recovery is made. (d) Same fault is committed by the Detaining Authority while furnishing the grounds of detention in respect of Crime No. 298/2013 and Crime No. 353/2013 registered in Yelahanka Police Station. The grounds of detention supplied to the detenue by the Detaining Authority reveal that the gold chain pertaining to Crime No. 298/2013 and 353/2013 is recovered from the detenue. As a matter of fact, no recovery is made from the detenue. On the other hand, the recovery of gold chain in both the crimes i.e., Crime No. 298/2013 and 353/2013 is made from other accused persons namely, Renuka & Seema. The complaint in Crime No. 353/2013 reveals that two persons came on a Bajaj Motor Cycle and snatched the chain from the complainant in the said crime. However, four persons including the detenue are arrested in Crime No. 353/2013 and it is wrongly shown in the grounds of detention that the recovery of gold chain is made from the detenue. (e) Insofar as sixth case i.e., Crime No. 11/2014 is concerned, complaint was lodged against three persons and Crime No. 11/2014 came to be registered in Yelahanka Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. The complaint was not lodged against the detenue herein. However, it seems during the course of investigation, he was also taken into custody and later, he was released on bail. Even while submitting charge sheet, he was given up. The complaint was not lodged against the detenue herein. However, it seems during the course of investigation, he was also taken into custody and later, he was released on bail. Even while submitting charge sheet, he was given up. The allegation found in Para-6 of the Detention Order that certain gold ornaments were recovered from detenue is false, in as much as the gold ornaments were recovered from Accused Nos. 1 to 3 only, who were arrested on the spot red-handed. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are Renuka, Seema and Jaffer respectively. It is also clear from the records that no charge sheet is filed against the detenue in C.C. No. 14982/2014 and he is not facing any trial. The grounds of detention further reveals that the detenue was arrested in Crime No. 11/2014 on 24.01.2014, whereas the crime is allegedly committed on 13.10.2014. We are at loss to understand as to how the person can be arrested 9 months earlier to commission of the crime. Added to it, as mentioned supra, no recovery from the detenue is made in this case also. (g) In respect of 7th case i.e., Crime No. 292/2014 of Yelahanka Police Station, the charge sheet reveals that the detenue is an absconding accused. The allegations found in the charge sheet are that, when the detenue was admitted to hospital because of his severe head injury on 03.102.014, the police officials entered the hospital for interrogating the detenue. At that point of time, the parents of the detenue and the public at large, who had already gathered in the hospital protested against the police and threatened the police. In that regard, Crime No. 292/2014 is registered against the detenue and others, for allegedly obstructing the police from discharging their legitimate duties. Since the detenue was taking treatment in relation to severe head injury sustained by him, there was no question of he threatening the police. According to the petitioner's counsel, the detenue was in Coma. Be that as it may. Since the detenue was bedridden and as he was taking treatment in the hospital, the allegations found in the charge sheet in Crime No. 292/2014 appear to be concocted as against the detenue. (h) In respect of Crime No. 153/2014 of Yelahanka Police Station is concerned, the detenue was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 324 & 506 of IPC. (h) In respect of Crime No. 153/2014 of Yelahanka Police Station is concerned, the detenue was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 324 & 506 of IPC. It is alleged in the charge sheet that, the detenue stopped the auto-rickshaw of the complainant near Yelahanka Old Post Office and picked-up quarrel with him and assaulted him with hands and a stone. In the charge sheet it is clearly stated that the detenue was in judicial custody in connection of another crime with UTP No. 5945/2015 during the relevant point of time. Since the detenue was in judicial custody as on the date of 04.05.2015 when the alleged Crime No. 153/2015 said to have been committed, there was no occasion for the accused to go out of the judicial custody and to commit the said offence. Therefore, the allegations found in charge sheet in Crime No. 153/2014 also appear to be incorrect and concocted. (i) In respect of 9th crime relied upon by the Detaining Authority in Crime No. 155/2015 of Yelahanka Police Station, the charge sheet reveals that the detenue threatened one Mr. Ravi, the Police Constable, at 10.20 a.m. when the said police constable went to the spot where the detenue was fighting and shouting with another person near a transgender's house. In the charge sheet submitted by the police in Crime No. 155/2015 also, it is clearly mentioned that the detenue was in judicial custody as on 04.05.2015 in connection of another case when the said in Crime No. 155/2015 was committed. Since the detenue was already in judicial custody, there is no question of he indulging in the aforesaid Crime No. 155/2015 on 04.05.2015. (j) In respect of 10th, 11th and 12th cases relied upon by the Detaining Authority, we find from the charge sheet that Crime Nos. 407/2015, 502/2015 and 506/2015 are all registered in Peenya Police Station when the detenue was in police custody from 06.06.2015 to 16.06.2015 in respect of another crime. According to the police, all the said three crimes were committed on 09.06.2015, 08.06.2015 and 09.06.2015 respectively. As admittedly, the detenue was in police custody from 06.06.2015 to 16.06.2015, there was no occasion for the detenue to commit the aforementioned crimes either on 08.06.2015 or 09.06.2015. In this regard, the argument of the learned advocate for the petitioner that, these cases are falsely created, deserves to be accepted. 5. As admittedly, the detenue was in police custody from 06.06.2015 to 16.06.2015, there was no occasion for the detenue to commit the aforementioned crimes either on 08.06.2015 or 09.06.2015. In this regard, the argument of the learned advocate for the petitioner that, these cases are falsely created, deserves to be accepted. 5. The aforementioned narration makes it amply clear that, with the total lack of application of mind, the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention Order based on facts, which were not in existence at all. As mentioned supra, in none of the aforementioned 11 cases and of 12 cases, (except the first case i.e., crime No. 297/2012) it can be said that the accused had indulged in any of the crimes. The erroneous facts with out any basis are averred in the grounds of detention. It is now well-settled that the grounds of detention should bear the true facts and that the accused should know as to what are all the allegations found against him, on the basis of which he is sought to be detained as a preventive measure. 6. Since the Detention Order as well as the grounds of detention fully center around the charge sheets submitted by the police in aforementioned 12 matters and as we find that the true facts are not forthcoming in the Detention Order as observed by us supra, the Order of Detention fails. Since we find that there is no application of mind by the Detaining Authority and as the order is passed mechanically, the impugned order of detention stands quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The detenue shall be released forthwith, in case if he is not required in any other criminal case.