Karnataka High Court
Mubeena Banu vs State Of Karnataka on 12 July, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
WPHC No. 17 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D HUDDAR
WPHC NO.17 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MUBEENA BANU,
W/O LATE SHABEER,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
SHREENAGARA, BEHIND JAIL,
HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN - 573 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SYED AMEER., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
Digitally signed TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
by SHARADA (LAW & ORDER) VIDHANA SOUDHA,
VANI B BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
& DISTRICT EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN TOWN,
HASSAN - 573 201.
5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
HASSAN TOWN POLICE STATION,
HASSAN CITY - 573 201.
-2-
WPHC No. 17 of 2024
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT, BELAGAVI
CENTRAL PRISON, VENGURLA ROAD,
HINDALGA VILLAGE - 591 108.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.A.BELLIAPPA., SPP-1 A/W
SRI. ANOOP KUMAR., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECITON/TO PRODUCE DETENUE RAHIL @
RAHUL AND TO QUASH THE DETENTION ORDER DATED
02.02.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN IN
NO.MAG/551/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE
CONFIRMATION ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN
NO.HD 399 SST 2023 DATED 21.09.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS WPHC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner happens to be the mother of one Mr. Rahil @ Rahul, who has suffered the Detention Order dated 02.02.2024 made by the 3rd Respondent - Deputy Commissioner under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Traffic Offencers, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates) Act, 1985.
She has also called in question, the Orders dated 09.02.2024 & 28.02.2024 issued under Section 3(3) of the -3- WPHC No. 17 of 2024 Act whereby the Detention Order has been confirmed for a period of one year.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner sought for the invalidation of these orders essentially arguing that: the detenue being a Muslim, does not know Kannada & English; he knows only Urdu; that being the position, all the papers on which the impugned orders are framed ought to have been translated to Urdu; this having not been done, there is legal infirmity; out of twenty criminal cases lodged against the detenue, in one he has secured acquittal; representation of the detenue has been wrongly rejected without giving assistance of legal practitioner; all criminal cases are the result of guilty mind of the police officials; the complaint lodged by his wife has been withdrawn; when there were bail orders, preventive detention was uncalled for; in any circumstance, the detenue is entitled to be transferred to Mysuru Jail from Belagavi wherein he has been now lodged. So arguing, learned counsel prayed for allowing of the Petition.
Learned SPP appearing for the Respondents resisted the -4- WPHC No. 17 of 2024 Petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been constructed. He has also filed a Statement of Objections supported by the affidavit of the jurisdictional Police Inspector.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
A. In more or less a similar case decided by us in WPHC No.55/2024, between SMT. NANDINI vs. THE D.G. AND I.G.P OF POLICE & OTHERS, disposed off this day, we have briefly given the description of the 1985 Act and also the comparative law obtaining in foreign countries. The same being relevant, are reproduced below:
"a) This statute is a State Legislation. Its Preamble says that this Act intends '...to provide for preventive detention of bootleggers, drug-
offenders, gamblers, goondas, [Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio pirates] for preventing their dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order'. Thrice it has been amended: Amending Act 22 of 1987, Amending Act 16 of 2001 and Amending Act 61 of 2013. Section 2 is the Dictionary Clause of the Act. The building block of the Act namely 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' is defined very extensively under clause (a). It has an Explanation for 'disruption of public order' -5- WPHC No. 17 of 2024 which includes an Act inter alia generating the feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof. Clause (b) defines 'bootlegger' in a extensive way. Clause (e) defines 'drug offender'; clause (f) defines 'gambler'; clause (g) defines 'goonda'; clause
(h) defines Immoral Traffic Offender; clause (i) defines 'slum grabber' extensively; and clause
(k) defines 'video or audio pirate'. Other definitions are not significant to the case at hand.
b) Section 3 vests power to make Detention Orders. Apparently, it is preventive detention and not punitive. Sub-section (1) vests that power in the State Government. Sub-section (2) vests the power to direct detention in the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police. Proviso to sub-section (2) prescribes the initial period of detention which shall not exceed three months; however, State may extend it to one year 'at any one time'. When District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police orders detention under sub-section (2), he has to report the same to the State Government forthwith along with the grounds on which such order is made. Such order shall remain in force for a period of twelve days unless the same is approved by the State Government.
c) Section 4 provides for the execution of Detention Orders as if they are warrants of arrest issued under Cr.P.C., 1973. Section 5 vests power in the State Government to regulate certain aspects as to detention by making general or special order in the name of Delegated Legislation. Clause (a) says that such regulation may be as to place & conditions of detention. These conditions may include maintenance, discipline and punishment for breach of discipline. Clause (b) empowers the -6- WPHC No. 17 of 2024 State Government to remove the detenue from one place to another. Section 6 is the sanctifying clause which immunes the Detention Orders made by the District Magistrate & Commissioner of Police from challenge only on the ground that the potential detenue or the place of his detention is outside the limits of their territorial jurisdiction. Section 6A is also a sanctifying clause which immunes challenge on the ground of vagueness, non-existent/not relevant facts, etc. Sub-clause (v) of clause (a) of this Section employs a strange provision that order of detention shall not be 'invalid for any other reason whatsoever'. Such absolute immunity runs counter to the idea of Welfare State and constitutional freedoms. The draftsman appears to have erred here.
d) Section 7 again reads Detention Orders as the arrest warrants when the potential detenue is absconding or concealing. The authority making the Detention Order will have powers under sections 82 to 86 of Cr.P.C. qua such absconders/concealers. Thus, proclamation, attachment, and auctioning of properties of such persons may be undertaken by the authority. It also provides for an appeal against such coercive measures when application for recalling the same is rejected. The Court of Session is the Appellate Authority. Sub-section (2) of this section also provides for coercive measures to be taken for securing the presence of the potential detenue. Where such measures are defeated/violated because of culpable act attributable to such person, he can be tried for the said offence and punished with imprisonment that may extend to one year or with fine or with both. This offence is made a cognizable offence under clause (c) of sub- section (2). Section 8 mandates disclosure of grounds of detention to the detenue within an -7- WPHC No. 17 of 2024 outer limit of five days and provide him an opportunity of making a representation to the Government against the proposed action.
e) Section 9 provides for constitution of Advisory Board by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka. It shall consist of a Sitting Judge of this Court as the Chairman and two serving or retired Judges of any High Court. The Board is accordingly constituted and all the three Judges are the serving Judges of this Court. Section 10 provides for reference to Advisory Board, within three weeks from the date the person is treated in terms of Detention Order. The reference should be accompanied by the grounds of detention, representation of the detenue if any and the report of the detaining authority. Section 11 prescribes the procedure & functions of the Board. It provides that the Board shall consider the materials placed before it; it may call for further information from the State Government or from any person as it desires; if that person seeks a hearing, he shall be heard in the matter. The Board will deliberate & decide by rule of majority. After this exercise, the Board shall report to the State Government within seven weeks of detention specifying its opinion as to there being sufficient cause for the detention. There is no indication in this provision that no personal hearing shall be given to the detenue despite request, however Sub-Section (5) excludes appearance of lawyers as a matter of right. The proceedings of the Board, its report accepting opinion are made confidential under Sub-Section (4). Section 12 vests discretion in the Government to confirm Detention Order and continue the detention for a period not exceeding twelve months as prescribed under Section 13. If the Board finds detention unjustifiable, the Government shall revoke the same. It has no discretion here.
-8- WPHC No. 17 of 2024(f) Section 14 vests power in the Government even otherwise to revoke or modify the Detention Order. It also provides for issuance of fresh Detention Orders. In other words, there is no bar for continuing the same by issuing fresh Detention Orders under Sub- section (2). In that event, the spells of detention may exceed one year. However, that cannot be done casually. Even when no fresh facts have arisen after the revocation or expiry of the earlier Detention Order, still another Detention Order can be issued for a period not exceeding twelve months reckoned from the date of detention made under the earlier Detention Order. Section 15 provides for release of the detenue by the State Government for any specified period subject to conditions. If these conditions are breached, such release may be rescinded. Furnishing of a bond with or without sureties can be made a precondition for release so that, to secure compliance of other conditions. Breach of conditions results into forfeiture of bond and payment of penalty. The releasee shall revert to detention of the period of release has expired or its purpose is fructified. Sub-Section (4) makes the releasee liable to prosecution for the offence punishable with imprisonment upto two years, or with fine, or with both. Section 16 enacts good faith protection to the Government & officials. Section 17 prevents detention orders being made by the State Government under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980 if such an order can be made under the 1985 Act. Section 18 provides for repeal of the Karnataka Ordinance 16 of 1984 which preceded the Act, and protects the action taken under the said Ordinance."
-9- WPHC No. 17 of 2024B. COMPARATIVE LAW OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION:
"In any civilized jurisdiction, private interest of an individual should yield to the public interest. That is how the constitutional guarantees do operate. Absolute rights & privileges are unknown to matured constitutions. Laws of the kind do exist even in USA; American law eschews it except where legislatures and courts deem it necessary to prevent grave public harms. The law then tends to unapologetically countenance detention, but only to the extent necessary to prevent those harms. In Australia, as a general rule individuals cannot be preventively detained beyond a particular period. However, many exceptions are recognized by the High Court of Australia, i.e., apex court of the country vide FARDONA vs ATTORNEY GENERAL (QLd)-
(2004) HCA46- 223 CLR 575. In 2001, Canada enacted Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which permits preventive detention on the ground of threat to national security. The Supreme Court of Canada in CHARCHARKAOUI vs CANADA, 2007 SCC 9 (Can) frowned on this. In response, Canadian Parliament has revised this statute. Even in UK under Section 226A of Criminal Justice Act, 2003, the Secretary of State can continue detention of a person subject to referring the matter to the Parole Board and its decision. In the landmark case of SECRETARY OF THE STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT vs. E & ANOTHER, (2007) UKHL 47, House of Lords highlighted the limits of Governmental powers in relation to national security and human rights protection, is also true. All this shows that the law relating to preventive detention obtains in every jurisdiction of necessity, regardless of its varying scope and application."
- 10 -
WPHC No. 17 of 2024C. EXAMINATION OF CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES:
a) The first contention of Petitioner's counsel that the police with guilty mind have falsely implicated the detenue in as many as 20 criminal cases and that, he has been wrongly registered in the Rowdy Sheet, is bit difficult to countenance. Nothing has been explained as to why the jurisdictional police should be inimical to him. There is a legal presumption as to Government and its officials discharging their official duties in accordance with law. No administration of criminal justice system can work unless official functionaries are presumed to function in accordance with law. Absolutely no material is placed by the Petitioner to vouch contention of the kind and therefore, the same cannot be countenanced.
b) The second contention that the Petitioner is innocent & innocuous, is liable to be rejected inasmuch as, admittedly 20 criminal cases have been pending against the detenue. Brief particulars of the same are furnished in a tabular form:
Sl. POLICE CRIME COURT/CC PRESENT No. STATION NUMBER NUMBER STATE OF THE CASE
1. Hassan City 240/2017 CC 114/19 Appearance Police Station under section PCJ & JMFC of Accused 8(a) 20(B) H.G. NDPS Act 06.07.2024
2. Hassan City 243/2017 u/s S.C. 178/18 Case Police Station 341, 323, Acquitted on Session Court 307, 506, 504 15.04.2023 of IPC
- 11 -WPHC No. 17 of 2024
3. Hassan City 320/2018 u/s S.C. 232/22 P.T HG Police Station 323, 324, Session Court dated 307, 504,506 08.07.2024 of IPC
4. Hassan City 111/2019 u/s CC 4396/19 Summons Police Station 341, 504, PCJ & JMFC HG 323, 324,596 24.07.2024 of IPC
5. Hassan City 146/2019 u/s S.C. 28/22 Framing of Police Station 498a, Session Court Charge/Plea 307,506 of 21.08.2024 IPC
6. Hassan City 121/2020 u/s CC No. Appearance Police Station 8a, 20b of 4577/2021 of Accused NDPS Act PCJ & JMFC HG 11.09.2024.
7. Hassan City 114/2020 u/s SC 120/22 Framing of Police Station 341, 447, Session Court Charge/Plea 504, 307, 506 HG R/w of IPC 22.07.2024
8. Hassan City 141/2020 u/s Spl. No. Framing of Police Station 8(c), 20b, 20c 413/21 Charge/Plea of NDPS Act Session Court HG of NDPS Act 29.07.2024
9. Hassan City 143/2021 u/s CC 1839/22 Appearance Police Station 8c, 20(b)(2) PCJ & JMFC of Accused of NDPS Act HG 09.08.2024
10. Hassan City 60/2022 u/s CC 2708/22 Summons Police Station 20(b)(2)(a) of PCJ & JMFC HG NDPS Act 25.07.2024.
11. Hassan City 61/2022 u/s CC 2709/22 Framing of Police Station 20(b)(2)(a) of PCJ & JMFC Charge/Plea NDPS Act HG 21.08.2024
12. Hassan City 71/2022 u/s CC 4093/22 Summons Police Station 504, 323, PCJ & JMFC HG 324, 506 /w. 08.08.2024 34 of IPC
13. Hassan City 75/2022 u/s CC 4392/22 Appearance Police Station 20(b)(2)(a) of PCJ & JMFC of Accused NDPS Act HG 14.08.2024
- 12 -WPHC No. 17 of 2024
14. Hassan City 85/2022 u/s CC 4393/22 Framing of Police Station 20(b) (2)(a) PCJ & JMFC Charge/Plea of NDPS Act 15.07.2024
15. Hassan City 95/2023 u/s CC 16/22 CJM Committed Police Station 397 of IPC to Session Court
16. Hassan City 107/2022 u/s CC 20/22 CJM Notice HG Police Station 307 of IPC 22.07.2024
17. Hassan City 81/2023 U/S CC 28/23 CJM Notice HG Police Station 241, 504, 22.07.2024 323, 307, 506 R/w 34 of IPC
18. Hassan City 110/2023 u/s Spl.No.544/23 Framing of Police Station 8(c), 22(A), Session Court Charge/plea 20(b) (2) of HG NDPS Act 09.07.2024
19. Hassan City 142/2023 u/s CC 2157/24 First Police Station 424 of IPC PCJ & JMFC Hearing HG and 42 of 21.08.2024 Karnataka Prisions Act 8C, 2A of NDPS Act
20. Hassan City 211/2023 u/s CC 290/24 Summons Police Station 143,147, 148, PCJ & JMFC HG 141,504, 323, 25.07.2024 324, 506,149 of IPC
21. Hassan City 219/2023 U/S CC 16/24 CJM First Police Station 506,504, 143, Hearing HG 147,148, 149, 15.07.2024 323,324, 114 of IPC
c) The next contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the criminal case filed by his wife Smt.Shama Banu in Crime No.111/2019 under Sections 341, 504, 323, 324 & 506 of IPC has been withdrawn by
- 13 -WPHC No. 17 of 2024
her, again is not true. On 27.09.2019, at evening 4.00 pm, he had attacked the lady with a long sword with intent to murder her. He had sexually harassed the said lady when she was alone at home; he had threatened her mother to give her in marriage to him. He had also pressurized the complainant-mother from withdrawing the complaint. On 30.07.2019, he had wrongfully obstructed both the complainant and her daughter and further, used abusive words having pushed the ladies down to the ground and stamped on them with feet. In fact, the police after investigation have filed the Charge Sheet on 23.10.2019 and CC No.4396/2019 is pending before the Magistrate Court. Subsequently, he has married the said lady. However, even then, he has been beating her and ill treating her. Absolutely no material is produced to vouch the contention of withdrawal and his wife joining the matrimonial home back.
d) The next contention of petitioner's counsel that he does not know English or Kannada and therefore, he could not structure his representation against the orders in question, does not merit consideration. In fact, he had filed the representation in Kannada, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-C. Nothing prevented him from asking the translated copies. No such request is forthcoming. The Detention Order dated 2.2.2024 and the reasoning order
- 14 -
WPHC No. 17 of 2024evenly dated are in Kannada. So is also, the Confirmation Order dated 28.02.2024. The detenue had given the representation dated 7.2.2024 to the government in Kannada language itself. He had appeared before the Advisory Board comprising of three serving Judges of this Court and had made his submission. At no point of time, he had raised any issue as to barriers of language. The contention now taken up is only an afterthought.
e) All other contentions of the kind advanced by the petitioner's counsel herein were examined by this court in more or less an identical case in WPHC No.55/2024 between SMT.NANDINI vs. THE DG & IG OF POLICE AND OTHERS, disposed off this day wherein, the following discussion appears:
"(e) The next submission of Petitioner's counsel that the detenue has secured bails in all the pending criminal cases subject to stringent conditions and therefore, the Detention Order could not have been made, is liable to be rejected for more than one reason: firstly, as many as 45 criminal cases are pending against the detenue; he is acquitted in a murder case giving benefit of doubt, is also true; it is not the case of Petitioner that it was honorable acquittal. There was one case of kidnapping/abduction in Crime No.29/2011 filed by none other than his first wife Smt.V.Bhanupriya and the detenue has been acquitted. Here again, it is not a case of honorable acquittal. There are two attempt to murder cases, one robbery case, 32 theft cases,
- 15 -WPHC No. 17 of 2024
one case of attack on public servant & 4 cases of hurt. All they are spread over between 2008 and 2024. Andersonpet Police Station (KGF), Marikuppan Police Station (KGF), Bangarpet Police Station (KGF), Kotthanur Police Station (Bengaluru), Avalahalli Police Station (Bengaluru) & K.R.Puram Police Station (Bengaluru), have been investigating/prosecuting these cases. Full particulars are given in the Statement of Objections. It is also true that there were other cases in which he has been acquitted. None of them is shown to be of honorable acquittal.
f) It is the primary duty of State as the guardian to protect the lives & liberties of the subjects; this duty has become onerous nowadays, cannot be disputed. Crime rate is shooting up as the official statistics furnished by the National Crime Records Bureau, Bengaluru, show. Women & children and aged & ailing have become the vulnerable sections at the hands of hooligans. The fear of law is diminishing; sensible sections of society live in anxiety & insecurity. Higher level of vigilance by the Administration has become inevitable. As of necessity, a larger leverage has to be conceded to it for ensuring peace & tranquility in the society. Measures like preventive detention are aimed at this. The criminal antecedents of detenue galore on record and they lend credence to the contention of learned SPP that his detention is inevitably ordered after exploring all alternatives. The authorities, who have field knowledge, form the opinion as to whether detention of the kind is warranted, keeping in view a host of factors. The Detention Order has been examined by the State Government. Even the Advisory Board comprising of three serving Judges of this Court having looked into the matter, has chosen not
- 16 -
WPHC No. 17 of 2024to recommend for the revocation of Detention Order. Essentially, matters like this belong to the domain of Statutory Authorities, and Courts cannot run a race of opinions with the Executive in due deference to the doctrine of separation of powers which is recognized as a Basic Feature of the Constitution, vide KESAVANANDA BHARATI vs. STATE OF KERALA, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
g) The last contention of the Petitioner's counsel that in all the pending matters, the detenue has been admitted to bail subject to complying with conditions and there is no complaint of violation of bail conditions and therefore the Detention Order is not explicable, appears to be too farfetched an argument. As already mentioned above, the criminal antecedents of the detenue abound on record. The number of criminal cases, the nature of criminality, the kind of victims chosen by the detenue all would leave no reasonable mind unbaffled. Admittedly he is a Rowdy Sheeter.
None other than his first was kidnapped/abducted by him. He is facing a plethora of criminal cases, is not in dispute.
Due to mounting arrears, the investigation/trial/disposal of criminal cases would take years if not decades. Such has become the Administration of Criminal Justice. Less said is better. Ordinarily, for offences for which prescribed punishment is not death, nor life imprisonment, offenders secure bail by raising the slogan "bail is a rule and jail is an exception" vide STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. BALCHAND @ BALIAY, AIR 1977 SC 2447.
Social conditions have undergone catastrophic change and people are living in different times. The principles & maxims of law are not immutable; they have elements of relativity; their relevance is 'time & circumstance bound'.
- 17 -
WPHC No. 17 of 2024Therefore, the same cannot be invoked mindlessly for granting reprieve disregarding its consequences on the larger interest of the community.
h) Added to the above, the considerations for grant of bail are much different from those for making orders of preventive detention, although in both the cases; the constitutional guarantees figure as a dominant factor in favour of the citizen. But no guarantee is absolute. The Apex Court in VIJAY NARAIN SINGH vs. STATE OF BIHAR, (1984) 3 SCC 14 observed:
"...When a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinizing 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..."
These observations also lend support to the view that the Court has to exercise some restraint while undertaking the scrutiny of preventive detention orders made under the 1985 Act. If it were to be a punitive order, different considerations would have weighed with the Court. The immunity clause enacted in Section 6A of the Act which masks certain arguable irregularities in the Orders of Detention also supports this stand, in the absence of any challenge to the same. In a system governed by rule of law, there cannot be an island of immunity from judicial scrutiny, is also true.
i) Detention orders of the kind put the citizen to prejudice, cannot be much disputed. However, they are an exceptional price which a citizen pays for being a member of civilized society, for conditions applicable to him and not
- 18 -
WPHC No. 17 of 2024applicable to the rest. The avalanche of criminal cases which are still pending, many after investigation and the rest in pre-Charge Sheet stage repel the contention that the detenue is absolutely innocuous. After all, it is not a case of indefinite detention. The Act itself prescribes a maximum period of one year as is specified in the impugned orders. Section 14 provides for the revocation or modification of the Detention Order by the State Government. The detenue can tap this provision. He can also seek temporary release from detention or for the curtailment of the period of detention as provided under Section 15, if grounds do exist therefor."
f) The last contention of the petitioner that the detenue should be shifted to Mysore jail from Belagavi jail is liable to be rejected inasmuch as where a detenue of the kind should be housed, essentially is a matter falling within the Executive wisdom of the government which considers a host of factors and takes the decision. At times, persons of the kind pose several difficulties to the inmates, if the place where they are jailed has proximity to their place of ordinary residence. There are other factors such as the approved capacity of the jails and the excessive inhabitation.
- 19 -
WPHC No. 17 of 2024In the above circumstances, this Petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy. It is open to the petitioner to take advantage of certain observations hereinabove made.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/Bsv/cbc