Karnataka High Court
Thammanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 September, 2017
Bench: Ravi Malimath, John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
WP(HC) NO.16 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
THAMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
F/O UMESHA @ MIKA
R/O NO 251,
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
SHIVAPURA
BENGALURU - 560073 ... PETITIONER
(By Sri: PRADEEP C S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
(LAW AND ORDER)
VIDHANA SOUDHA
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
2
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU CITY INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001
3. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU - 560100
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: E.S.INDIRESH, AGA)
THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, IS FILED BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT BE PLEASED TO
A) ISSUE ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
PRODUCE THE DETENUE.
B) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS BY
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.09.2016
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.5/CRM
(4)/DTN/2016.
C) ISSUE WRIT, ORDER TO QUASH THE DETENTION
ORDER DATED 02.11.2016 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1
IN H.D.358 SST 2016 AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO RELEASE THE DETENUE.
*****
THIS WPHC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner who is the father of the detenue, has filed this petition seeking to quash the order of detention passed by the second respondent - Commissioner of Police dated 23.09.2016 and the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the first respondent - State of Karnataka confirming the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the detention orders passed by the respondents are illegal. That they have not complied with the due requirements of law. That there has been a gross violation which affects the fundamental rights of the detenue.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondents supports the detention orders. He contends that all the formalities in law have been complied with. The grounds of detention would indicate that the detenue was involved in atleast five cases involving heinous offences. Based on 4 these materials, the orders of detention were passed. Hence, he submitted that no interference is called for.
4. The second respondent by his order dated 23.9.2016 passed an order of preventive detention in pursuance of section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Piracy Act, 1985. It included the grounds of detention. The detention order was approved by the State Government on 1.10.2016. Thereafter, a representation dated 22.10.2016 was made by the detenue which was placed before the Advisory Board. On 24.10.2016, the Advisory Board passed an order finding sufficiency of the cause for detention. On 26.10.2016, the Government rejected the representation and by the order dated 2.11.2016, the detention order was confirmed. Therefore, we find that the requirements of law so far as passing of the detention orders by the authorities cannot be found fault with. The detenue was 5 communicated with the grounds of detention based on which he has made his representation. Therefore, we find no error in the procedure adopted by the State.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that in the grounds of detention it is narrated that a rowdy sheet has been opened in his name on 24.11.2014. It is contended that in terms of section 1060 of the Karnataka Police Manual, the validity of the rowdy sheet is between January to December of every year. Therefore it would expire on 31.12.2014. There is no rowdy sheet opened thereafter. Therefore, such a ground of detention is unacceptable. Even if it so, we do not find that it would affect the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Whether his name is included in the rowdy sheet or not is really of no consequence.
6. Further certain errors were brought to our notice in the detention orders with regard to the date and 6 the ground on which the bail has been granted with reference to Crime No.790 of 2016 and vis-a-vis Crime No.639 of 2015 of Peenya Police Station. Even if such a ground is accepted, we are of the view that same does not affect the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
7. Crime No.168 of 2014 was registered under sections 324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code before the Peenya Police Station on the allegation that the detenue along with his associates cut off the left hand and attempted to kill one Krishnojirao. The charge-sheet was filed and the matter is pending trial.
8. Crime No.674 of 2015 was registered in Peenya Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that the detenue was planning to commit dacoity. The charge-sheet has been filed and the same is pending trial.
7
9. In Hiriyur Police Station, Crime No.58 of 2016 was registered under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120(B), 109 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the detenue attacked and killed Sri.Manjunath @ Chopra and Sri.Nagaraj @ Seegadinaga with lethal weapons. He was released on bail and the matter is pending trial.
10. On considering the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority, we are of the view that subjective satisfaction is arrived at. There are various heinous offences alleged against the detenue. His preventive detention is required in order to maintain public peace and order. It is also required to ensure that the Society is not threatened nor that the detenue creates a menace to them. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there are no grounds to order preventive detention. The grounds relied upon by the Detaining Authority are just and appropriate and are based on material on record. The fundamental right of the detenue has not been infringed. 8 Hence, we do not find that there is infraction of law or violation of the fundamental right of the detenue.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE
Bss.