High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Where Illegible Documents Were Supplied and Bail Order Was Ignored

A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaramaran and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil heard a petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging a detention order dated 29.08.2025 and its confirmation dated 10.10.2025 under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities (Goonda) Act, 1985. The petition, filed by the detenue’s wife, contested the legality of preventive detention on the grounds that key documents supplied to the detenue were illegible and that a prior bail order in a pending criminal case was not placed before or considered by the detaining authority.

The Bench allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention and its confirmation, and directed immediate release of the detenue if he was not required in any other case. The court held that supply of illegible copies of documents relied upon by the detaining authority deprived the detenue of the ability to make an effective representation as guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and that failure to consider a prior court-granted bail order amounted to non-consideration of relevant material affecting the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that supply of illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by the detaining authority deprives the detenue from making an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and denial of which is result in violation of the procedure contemplated under the law for passing an order of preventive detention.” The Bench reiterated established authorities, noting that “the detenue must be given the grounds in a language which he can understand, and in a script which he can read, if he is a literate person.”

Background

The detenue was held under Section 2(g) of the Goonda Act as a purported habitual offender, with the detaining officer relying upon a series of criminal cases registered against him between 2010 and 2025. The last FIR cited by the authority was Crime No. 29/2025 (registered 01.02.2025). The detenue’s representation, placed before the State, asserted that several documents supplied in support of detention were illegible; he also relied on an order of bail dated 08.07.2025 in Crime No.29/2025 which predated the detention order of 29.08.2025. The State defended the detention as procedurally compliant and urged that the detenue was a repeat offender whose conduct threatened public order.

The High Court examined the statutory scheme (Sections 3, 8, 10, 11 and 13 of the Goonda Act) which required communication of grounds within five days, placement of materials before an Advisory Board within three weeks, and the furnishing of material relied upon to enable effective representation. Applying Supreme Court precedents — including Harikisan, Bhupinder Singh, Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite, and the recent guidance in Ameena Begum — the Bench found that illegible copies and the non-placement/non-consideration of the prior bail order vitiated the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction. The court observed that such procedural infirmities were sufficient to render the detention unlawful and violative of Article 21 read with Article 22(5). Consequently, the High Court quashed the detention order dated 29.08.2025 and the confirmation dated 10.10.2025, directed the detenue’s release forthwith if not required in other cases, and directed the Registry to communicate the operative order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kalaburagi.

Case Details: Case No.: W.P.H.C. No. 122 of 2025 Case Title: Smt. Rakshitha v. The State of Karnataka and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri. B. Lethif, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Sri. B. A. Belliappa, SPP-I with Sri. Thejesh P., HCGP