- 1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23

RD

DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

W.P.H.C. NO.106/2025

BETWEEN:

RAJA ALIAS REGAN

DETENUE

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

S/O JAKRIYAS

R/AT NO.802, CHAMARAJPET

ANDERSONPET, KGF TALUK

KOLAR DISTRICT.

PRESENTLY IN: CENTRAL JAIL

MYSORE.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S. JAGAN BABU, ADV.,)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

HOME DEPARTMENT

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

(L AND O), VIDHANA SOUDHA

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

KOLAR DISTRICT

KOLAR.

- 2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

3. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR

ANDERSONPET POLICE STATION

K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

CHAMPION REEF, K.G.F. TALUK

KOLAR DISTRICT.

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

CHAMPION REEF, K.G.F. TALUK

KOLAR DISTRICT.

6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON

CENTRAL PRISON

MYSURU DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP-I WITH

SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP)

THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR

DIRECTION OR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND BE PLEASED T O

QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED

16.08.2025 PASSED BY HOME DEPARTMENT (L AND O),

VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, GOVERNMENT

OF KARNATAKA, NO.HD. 326 SST 2025 AND TO SET ASIDE

THE DETENTION ORDER DATED 04.07.2025 PASSED BY 2ND

RESPONDENT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT

MAGISTRATE AND BE PLEASED TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.6

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL JAIL, MYSURU TO

RELEASE THE PETITIONER. DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.6 TO

RELEASE PETITIONER FORTHWITH & ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

- 3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This petition is filed by the detenue seeking a writ in

the nature of certiorari quashing the detention order dated

04.07.2025 passed in No.MAG(2)CR/L&O/01/2025-26 by

the respondent No.2, the order of approval dated

11.07.2025 and the order of confirmation No.HD.326

SST.2025 dated 16.08.2025 passed by the respondent

No.1 detaining the detenue in Central Prison, Mysur u,

under the provisions of Karnataka Prevention of

Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,

Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Trafficking Offenders, S lum

Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates) Act, 1985

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Goonda Act').

2.

The brief facts leading to the filing of this

petition are that the detenue has been detained pursuant

to the order of detention passed by the respondent No.2

against the detenue on 04.07.2025 under Section 2(g ) of

- 4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

the Goonda Act, for being a habitual offender and

repeatedly undertaking activities punishable under the

various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), the Narcotics Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the NDPS Act') and the Bharatiya Ny aya

Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNS') and in

order to prevent him from further engaging in the

activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the pu blic

order. The order of detention was approved vide or der

dated 11.07.2025 and confirmed by the respondent No .1

vide order dated 16.08.2025. Being aggrieved by the said

order of detention and the consequent confirmation of the

said order, this petition is filed by the detenue.

3.

Sri.S.Jagan Babu, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner submits that the detention order has been

passed in violation of law and suffers from the procedural

irregularities. It is submitted that the detenue was not

produced before the Advisory Board within 21 days f rom

- 5 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

the date of detention under the order, which is in violation

of the procedure laid down in the Act. It is furth er

submitted that the detenue was not furnished with t he

copies of the documents relied on by the Detaining

Authority but only the order of detention and the grounds

of detention were furnished, which is in violation of the

right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of

India i.e the right to give effective representation. Hence,

he seeks to allow the petition by setting the detenue free.

4.

The learned State Public Prosecutor-I appearing

for the respondent-State submits that the order of

detention has been passed after following all procedural

requirements and arriving at a subjective satisfaction. It

is submitted that the detenue, despite being under trial in

various offences and being out on bail, has continued his

illegal activities causing disturbance to the public order

due to which, he is required to be detained under t he

order of preventive detention. Hence, he seeks to dismiss

the petition.

- 6 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

5.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, learned SPP-I appearing for the

respondent-State and perused the material available on

record. We have given our anxious consideration to the

submissions advanced on both the sides and the mate rial

available on record.

6.

The point that arises for consideration in this

petition is:

"Whether the impugned order of

detention dated 04.07.2025 passed by the

respondent No.2, the order of approval dated

11.07.2025 and the order of confirmation

dated 16.08.2025 passed by the respondent

No.1, are sustainable under law?"

7.

To appreciate the case on hand, it would be

useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Goonda Act

and they are extracted as under for ready reference:

"3. Power to make orders detaining certain

persons.- (1) The State Government may, if

- 7 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

satisfied with respect to any bootlegger or drug-

offender or gambler or goonda or [Immoral Traffic

Offender or Slum-Grabber or Video or Audio pirate]

that with a view to prevent him from acting in any

manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public

order, it is necessary so to do, make an order

directing that such persons be detained.

(2) If, having regard to the circumstances

prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the

local limits of the jurisdiction of a District

Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State

Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to

do, it may, by order in writing, direct that during

such period as may be specified in the order, such

District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may

also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1),

exercise the powers conferred by the sub-section :

Provided that the period specified in the order

made by the State Government under this sub-

section shall not, in the first instance, exceed three

months, but the State Government may, if satisfied

as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend

such order to extend such period from time to time

by any period not exceeding three months at any

one time.

- 8 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

(3) When any order is made under this

section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2),

he shall forthwith report the fact to the State

Government together with the grounds on which

the order has been made and such other particulars

as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter

and no such order shall remain in force for more

than twelve days after the making thereof, unless,

in the meantime, it has been approved by the State

Government.

8. Grounds of order of detention to be

disclosed to persons affected by the order.-

(1) When a person is detained in pursuance

of a detention order, the authority making the

order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than

five days from the date of detention, communicate

to him the grounds on which the order has been

made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity

of making a representation against the order to the

State Government.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require

the authority to disclose facts which it considers to

be against the public interest to disclose.

- 9 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

10. Reference to Advisory Board.-

In every case where a detention order has

been made under this Act the State Government

shall within three weeks from the date of detention

of a person under the order, place before the

Advisory Board constituted by it under section 9,

the grounds on which the order has been made and

the representation, if any, made against the order,

and in case where the order has been made by an

officer, also the report by such officer under sub-

section (3) of section 3.

11. Procedure of Advisory Board.-

(1) The Advisory Board shall after considering

the materials placed before it and, after calling for

such further information as it may deem necessary

from the State Government or from any person

called for the purpose through the State

Government or from the person concerned, and if,

in any particular case, the Advisory Board considers

it essential so to do or if the person concerned

desire to be heard, after hearing him in person,

submit its report to the State Government, within

seven weeks from the date of detention of the

person concerned.

(2) The report of the Advisory Board shall

specify in a separate part thereof the opinion of the

- 10 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

Advisory Board as to whether or not there is

sufficient cause for the detention of the person

concerned.

(3) When there is a difference of opinion

among the members forming the Advisory Board,

the opinion of the majority of such members shall

be deemed to be the opinion of the Board.

(4) The proceedings of the Advisory Board

and its report, excepting that part of the report in

which the opinion of the Advisory Board is

specified, shall be confidential.

(5) Nothing in this section shall entitle any

person against whom a detention order has been

made to appear by any legal practitioner in any

matter connected with the reference to the

Advisory Board.

13. Maximum period of detention.-

The maximum period for which any person

may be detained, in pursuance of any detention

order made under this Act which has been

confirmed under section 12 shall be twelve months

from the date of detention."

8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Sections

indicates that the State Government may, if satisfied with

- 11 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

respect to any "Goonda” as defined under Section 2( g) of

the Goonda Act, with a view to prevent him from acting in

any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order,

pass an order directing such a person to be detaine d.

Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Goonda Act empo wers

the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police to

exercise the powers conferred under sub-Section (1) of

Section 3 of the Goonda Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 3

of the Goonda Act mandates that if the order is passed by

the Officer under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of t he

Goonda Act, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State

Government along with the grounds on which the orde r

has been made. The order made by the Officer under sub-

Section (2) shall remain in force for 12 days unless in the

meantime, the State Government approves it. Sectio n 8

of the Goonda Act mandates that the grounds of detention

are required to be served on the detenue within 5 d ays

from the date of detention and shall offer him the earliest

opportunity of making a representation against the order

- 12 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

to the State Government. Section 10 of the Goonda Act

mandates that the order of detention made under the

Goonda Act shall be placed before the Advisory Boar d

within a period of 3 weeks from the date of detenti on

order by the State Government along with grounds on

which the order has been made and representation, if any,

made against the order. Section 11 of the Goonda A ct

provides the procedure to be followed by the Adviso ry

Board. The Advisory Board is empowered to consider

providing personal hearing to the detenue and there after

submit report to the State Government within 7 week s

from the date of detention of the person concerned. The

Advisory Board is required to forward its opinion a s to

whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of

the person concerned. The opinion of the Advisory Board

is confidential. Section 13 of the Goonda Act indi cates

that the maximum period for detention is 12 months from

the date of detention.

- 13 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

9. The impugned detention order dated

04.07.2025 is passed by the respondent No.2 by recording

the reason that the detenue is aged about 26 years and a

resident of House No.802, Chamarajpet, Andersonpet,

K.G.F. Taluk, Kolar District, and he has been involved in

criminal cases including assault, attempt to murder ,

robbery and offences under the BNS, which has creat ed

fear in the minds of the people. To arrive at such a

conclusion, the Authority placed reliance on the following

cases:

(a)

Crime No.27/2025 registered by

Andersonpet Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1),

189(3), 189(4), 190, 191, 191(2), 351(2)

and 352 of BNS Act.

(b)

Crime No.28/2025 registered by

Andersonpet Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 109, 115(2),

118(1), 3(5) and 352 of BNS Act.

- 14 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

(c) Crime No.93/2016 registered by

Robertsonpet Police Station for the offences

punishable under Section 392 of the IPC.

(d)

Crime No.15/2017 registered by

Robertsonpet Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of

the IPC.

(e)

Crime No.90/2017 registered by

Robertsonpet Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of

the IPC.

(f)

Crime No.216/2018 registered by

Robertsonpet Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of

the IPC.

(g)

Crime No.73/2022 registered by

Robertsonpet Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 20(B)(2)(A) of

the NDPS Act.

- 15 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

(h) Crime No.30/2024 registered by Champion

Reef Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 110 E and G of

the Cr.P.C.

(i)

Crime No.118/2024 registered by

Robertsonpet Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 129 E and G of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023.

(j)

Crime No.23/2025 registered by

Robertsonpet Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1),

118(2), 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3) and

190 of the BNS.

(k)

Crime No.66/2016 registered by Champion

Reef Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of

IPC.

- 16 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

(l) Crime No.04/2017 registered by Champion

Reef Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 96(B) of the

Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

(m)

Crime No.107/2018 registered by BEML

Nagara Police Station for the offences

punishable under Section 379 of IPC.

(n)

Crime No.03/2021 registered by BEML

Nagara Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 454, 457 and

380 of IPC.

10. The aforesaid crimes were registered against

the detenue from 2016 to 2025. The last crime registered

against the detenue is in Crime No.23/2025 on

19.03.2025.

11.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the detenue was not furnished with the

documents relied on by the Detaining Authority, whi ch

- 17 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

violates the fundamental right of the detenue to gi ve

effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of

the Constitution of India.

12. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JASEELA SHAJI

Vs. UNION OF INDIA

1

, wherein it was held as under:

"23. In M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India [M.

Ahamedkutty v. Union of India, (1990) 2 SCC 1 :

1990 SCC (Cri) 258] , this Court was considering the

issue as to whether non-supply of the copies of the

bail application and the bail order vitiated the right of

the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of

India. After taking the survey of the earlier

judgments, this Court observed thus : (SCC pp. 12-

13, paras 19-20)

“19. The next submission is that of non-supply

of the bail application and the bail order. This

Court, as was observed in Mangalbhai Motiram

Patel v. State of Maharashtra [Mangalbhai Motiram

Patel v. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 4 SCC 470 :

1981 SCC (Cri) 49] has “forged” certain procedural

safeguards for citizens under preventive

detention. The constitutional imperatives in Article

22(5) are twofold : (1) The detaining authority

must, as soon as may be i.e. as soon as

practicable, after the detention communicate to the

detenu the grounds on which the order of detention

1

(2024) 9 SCC 53

- 18 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

has been made, and (2) the detaining authority

must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of

making the representation against the order of

detention. The right is to make an effective

representation and when some documents are

referred to or relied on in the grounds of detention,

without copies of such documents, the grounds of

detention would not be complete. The detenu has,

therefore, the right to be furnished with the

grounds of detention along with the documents so

referred to or relied on. If there is failure or even

delay in furnishing those documents it would

amount to denial of the right to make an effective

representation. This has been settled by a long line

of decisions : Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of

India [Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India,

(1980) 2 SCC 270 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 414] , Frances

Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra [Frances Coralie

Mullin v. W.C. Khambra, (1980) 2 SCC 275 : 1980

SCC (Cri) 419] , Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of

India [Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, (1980)

4 SCC 531 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 25] , Pritam Nath

Hoon v. Union of India [Pritam Nath Hoon v. Union

of India, (1980) 4 SCC 525 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 19]

, Tushar Thakker v. Union of India [Tushar

Thakker v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 499 : 1981

SCC (Cri) 13] , Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of

India [Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India,

(1981) 2 SCC 427 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 463] , Kirit

Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya v. Union of

India [Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya v. Union

of India, (1981) 2 SCC 436 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 471]

and Ana Carelina D'Souza v. Union of India [Ana

Carelina D'Souza v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC

53 (1) : 1982 SCC (Cri) 131(1)] .

20. It is immaterial whether the detenu already

knew about their contents or not.

In Mehrunisa v. State of

Maharashtra [Mehrunisa v. State of Maharashtra,

(1981) 2 SCC 709 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 592] it was

held that the fact that the detenu was aware of the

contents of the documents not furnished was

immaterial and non-furnishing of the copy of the

seizure list was held to be fatal. To appreciate this

point one has to bear in mind that the detenu is in

- 19 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

jail and has no access to his own documents.

In Mohd. Zakir v. State (UT of Delhi) [Mohd.

Zakir v. State (UT of Delhi), (1982) 3 SCC 216 :

1982 SCC (Cri) 695] it was reiterated that it being

a constitutional imperative for the detaining

authority to give the documents relied on and

referred to in the order of detention pari passu the

grounds of detention, those should be furnished at

the earliest so that the detenu could make an

effective representation immediately instead of

waiting for the documents to be supplied with. The

question of demanding the documents was wholly

irrelevant and the infirmity in that regard was

violative of constitutional safeguards enshrined in

Article 22(5).”

(emphasis supplied)

35. In Ranu Bhandari [Union of India v. Ranu

Bhandari, (2008) 17 SCC 348 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri)

543] , this Court observed thus : (SCC pp. 355-56,

paras 25-27)

“25. Keeping in mind the fact that of all human

rights the right to personal liberty and individual

freedom is probably the most cherished, we can

now proceed to examine the contention advanced

on behalf of the parties in the facts and

circumstances of this case. But before we proceed

to do so, it would be apposite to reproduce

hereinbelow a verse from a song which was

introduced in the cinematographic version of Joy

Adamson's memorable classic Born Free which in a

few simple words encapsulates the essence of

personal liberty and individual freedom and runs as

follows:

‘Born free, as free as the wind blows,

As free as the grass grows,

Born free to follow your heart.

Born free and beauty surrounds you,

The world still astounds you,

Each time you look at a star.

Stay free, with no walls to hide you,

- 20 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

You're as free as the roving tide,

So there's no need to hide.

Born free and life is worth living,

It's only worth living, if you're born free.’

The aforesaid words aptly describe the concept of

personal liberty and individual freedom which may,

however, be curtailed by preventive detention laws,

which could be used to consign an individual to the

confines of jail without any trial, on the basis of the

satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority on

the basis of material placed before him. The courts

which are empowered to issue prerogative writs

have, therefore, to be extremely cautious in

examining the manner in which a detention order is

passed in respect of an individual so that his right

to personal liberty and individual freedom is not

arbitrarily taken away from him even temporarily

without following the procedure prescribed by law.

26. We have indicated hereinbefore that the

consistent view expressed by this Court in matters

relating to preventive detention is that while issuing

an order of detention, the detaining authority must

be provided with all the materials available against

the individual concerned, both against him and in

his favour, to enable it to reach a just conclusion

that the detention of such individual is necessary in

the interest of the State and the general public.

27. It has also been the consistent view that

when a detention order is passed all the material

relied upon by the detaining authority in making

such an order, must be supplied to the detenu to

enable him to make an effective representation

against the detention order in compliance with

Article 22(5) of the Constitution, irrespective of

whether he had knowledge of the same or not.

These have been recognised by this Court as the

minimum safeguards to ensure that preventive

detention laws, which are an evil necessity, do not

become instruments of oppression in the hands of

the authorities concerned or to avoid criminal

proceedings which would entail a proper

investigation.”

(emphasis supplied)

- 21 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

36. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment would

reveal that for emphasising the importance of

personal liberty and individual freedom, this Court has

reproduced Joy Adamson's memorable classic Born

Free. This Court observed that though the concept of

personal liberty and individual freedom can be

curtailed by preventive detention laws, the courts

have to ensure that the right to personal liberty and

individual freedom is not arbitrarily taken away even

temporarily without following the procedure

prescribed by law. It has been held that when a

detention order is passed all the material relied upon

by the detaining authority in making such an order

must be supplied to the detenu to enable him to make

an effective representation. This Court held that this

is required in order to comply with the mandate of

Article 22(5) of the Constitution, irrespective of

whether the detenu had knowledge of such material

or not.

37. It is thus a settled position that though it may

not be necessary to furnish copies of each and every

document to which a casual or passing reference has

been made, it is imperative that every such document

which has been relied on by the detaining authority

and which affects the right of the detenu to make an

- 22 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

effective representation under Article 22(5) of the

Constitution has to be supplied to the detenu."

13. It is clear from the aforesaid enunciation of law

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though the concep t of

personal liberty and individual freedom can be curtailed by

preventive detention laws, the Courts have to ensure that

the right to personal liberty and individual freedom is not

arbitrarily taken away even temporarily without following

the procedure prescribed by law. It has been held t hat

when a detention order is passed all the material r elied

upon by the Detaining Authority in making such an o rder

must be supplied to the detenue to enable him to make an

effective representation. In the instant case, the detenue

was only furnished with the order of detention and the

grounds of detention and no documents that were rel ied

on by the Detaining Authority were furnished and th e

same is also admitted by the respondents, which cle arly

violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Art icle

22(5) of the Constitution of India.

- 23 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

14.

Though the petitioner has raised other grounds

in the petition to attack the order of detention, we are of

the considered view that the impugned orders of detention

are required to be interfered solely on the ground referred

supra. Hence, we need not consider the other

contentions. Having held that the detention order under

challenge is contrary to law and requires interference, we

are of the considered view that the impugned order of

detention is passed in violation of the fundamental rights

of the detenue guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

15.

For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned detention order dated

04.07.2025 passed by the respondent

No.2, the order of approval dated

11.07.2025 and the order of confirmation

- 24 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:11040-DB

W.P.H.C. No.106/2025

dated 16.08.2025 passed by the

respondent No.1, are hereby quashed.

iii. The respondents are directed to set the

detenue at liberty forthwith if his

detention is not required in any other

cases.

iv. Registry is directed to communicate the

operative portion of the order to the Chief

Superintendent of Central Prison, Mysuru,

forthwith for compliance.

v. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

JUDGE

RV

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3