- 1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

W.P.H.C. NO.121/2025

BETWEEN:

SMT. PAVITHRA

W/O RAVIRAJ SHETTY

AGED ABOUT 51 YEAS

R/AT 8-116/182

SHRIDEVI NILAYA, SITE NO.82

ASHRAYA COLONY, IDDYA SURATHKAL

MANGALORE, KATIPALLA

D.K. DISTRICT 575030

(DETENUE SRI. BHARATH SHETTY).

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E, ADV.,)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY IS

ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

TO GOVERNMENT

HOME DEPARTMENT

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU 560 001.

2. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO

GOVERNMENT, (LAW AND ORDER)

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

HOME DEPARTMENT

- 2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU 560 001.

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

MANGALURU 575 001.

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT

CENTRAL PRISON

PARAPPANA AGRAHARA

BENGALURU 560 068.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN T HE

NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER

OR DIRECTION, QUASHING OF THE DETENTION ORDER DATED

31.01.2025 PASSED IN NO.MAG-1/01/G.A./MGC/2025 PASS ED

BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND THE CONFIRMATION ORDER

DATED 06.02.2025 IN GO NO.HD 56 SST 2025, BENGALURU

PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, AND THE ORDER DATED

15.03.2025 PASSED IN NO.M.A.G.-1/01/GA/M.A.N/2025 A ND

THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2025 PASSED IN NO.M.A.G.

1/GA/M/N/2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 THEREBY

DETAINING THE DETENUE IN CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA

AGRAHARA, BENGALURU FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR

BEGINNING FROM 31.01.2025 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF

KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES,

BOOTLEGGERS, DRUG OFFENDERS, GAMBLERS, GOONDAS

IMMORAL TRAFFICKING OFFENDERS, SLUM GRABBERS AND

VIDEO OR AUDIO PIRATES ACT, 1985 (HEREINAFTER

REFERRED TO AS THE ACT FOR SHORT) AND ALL FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO. (PRODUCED AS

ANNEXURE-A, B, C AND C1)& ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

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

This petition is filed by the mother of the detenue

seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus quashing the

detention order dated 31.01.2025 passed in No.MAG-

1/01/G.A/MGC/2025 by the respondent No.3, the

confirmation order dated 06.02.2025 in GO No.HD 56 SST

2025 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order da ted

05.08.2025 passed in No.M.A.G.1/GA/M/N/2025 passed by

the respondent No.3 detaining the detenue in Centra l

Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Benagluru, for a period of

one year beginning from 31.01.2025 under the provis ions

of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities ,

Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas,

Immoral Trafficking Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Vi deo

or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Goonda Act').

- 4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

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.3

against the detenue on 31.01.2025 under Section 2(g ) of

the Act for being a habitual offender and repeatedl y

undertaking activities punishable under various provisions

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') an d

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS Act') and in

order to prevent him from further engaging himself in the

activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The said order was confirmed by the respondent No.2 vide

order dated 06.02.2025. Being aggrieved by the sai d

order of detention and the consequent confirmation of the

said order, this petition is filed by the mother of the

detenue.

3.

Sri.Suyog Herele E, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, reiterating the facts and grounds of the

petition submits that in total, 13 cases have been filed

against the detenue, out of which, 8 cases have ended in

- 5 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

acquittal. However, the Detaining Authority has not

considered the said aspect before recording its subjective

satisfaction. It is further submitted that the respondent-

Authorities have given several documents in English ,

without a translation in Kannada and few of the

documents are totally illegible, due to which the detenue

has been devoid of being able to give an effective

representation which violates the right guaranteed under

Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In support of his

contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions:

(1) NENAVATH BUJJI ETC. Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

AND OTHERS

1

(2) BANKA SNEHA SHEELA Vs STATE OF TELANGANA

AND OTHERS

2

(3) MOHAMMAD SHAFIULLA Vs THE D.G AND I.G.P

OF POLICE AND OTHERS.

3

Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition by setting

the detenue free.

1

AIR 2024 SC 1610

2

(2021) 9 SCC 415

3

W.P.H.C. No.75/2023 dtd 07.12.2023

- 6 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

4. Sri.Thejesh P., learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that

the order of detention has been passed after following all

procedural requirements and arriving at a subjectiv e

satisfaction. It is submitted that the detenue has been a

habitual offender with 13 cases registered against him

under various provisions of the IPC and the BNS Act. It is

further submitted that due to the consistent illega l

activities of the detenue causing public disorder, the order

of detention was passed against the detenue to prev ent

the same. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

5.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State and perused the

material available on record. We have given our anx ious

consideration to the submissions advanced on both t he

sides and the material available on record.

- 7 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

6. The point that arises for consideration in this

petition is:

"Whether the impugned order of detention

dated 31.01.2025 passed by the

respondent No.3 and the confirmation

order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the

respondent No.2, is 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

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

- 8 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

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.

(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.

- 9 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

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.

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.

- 10 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

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

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.

- 11 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

(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 indicate

that the State Government may, if satisfied with 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, pas s an

order directing such a person to be detained. Sub-section

(2) of Section 3 of the Goonda Act empowers the Dis trict

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 Go onda

- 12 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

Act mandates that if the order is passed by the Off icer

under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Goonda Ac t, he

shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government

along with the grounds on which the order 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. Section 8 of the Goo nda

Act mandates that the grounds of detention are requ ired

to be served on the detenue within 5 days from the date

of detention and shall offer him the earliest opportunity of

making a representation against the order to the St ate

Government. Section 10 of the Goonda Act mandates that

the order of detention made under the Goonda Act shall be

placed before the Advisory Board within a period of 3

weeks from the date of detention order by the State

Government along with grounds on which the order ha s

been made and representation, if any, made against the

order. Section 11 of the Goonda Act provides the

procedure to be followed by the Advisory Board. Th e

- 13 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

Advisory Board is empowered to consider providing

personal hearing to the detenue and thereafter subm it

report to the State Government within 7 weeks from the

date of detention of the person concerned. The Adv isory

Board is required to forward its opinion as 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 indicates that

the maximum period for detention is 12 months from the

date of detention.

9.

The impugned detention order dated

31.01.2025 is passed by the respondent No.3 by recording

the reason that the detenue is aged about 27 years, is a

resident of Idya Village, Surathkal, Mangalore District, and

has been involved in criminal cases including murde r,

attempt to murder, assault, robbery and has created fear

in the minds of the people. To arrive at such a conclusion,

the Authority placed reliance on the following cases:

- 14 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

(a) Crime No.23/2014 registered Surathkal

Police for the offence punishable under

Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

(b)

Crime No.356/2014 registered by

Mangalore Rural police for the offence

punishable under Sections 307,324 r/w 149

of IPC.

(c)

Crime No.89/2015 registered by Panambur

Police for the offence punishable under

Sections 504, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

(d)

Crime No.45/2016 registered by Surathkal

Police for the offence punishable under

Sections 143,341,324,307,120(b) r/w 149

of IPC.

(e)

Crime No.187/2016 registered by Puttur

Police Station for the offence punishable

under Section 395 of IPC.

(f)

Crime No.73/2017 registered by Surathkal

Police for the offence punishable under

Sections 143,147,148,324,323,504,385,307

r/w 149 of IPC.

(g)

Crime No.205/2017 registered by Surathkal

Police for the offences punishable under

Sections 324,323,504,427 r/w 34 of IPC.

- 15 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

(h) Crime No. 122/2018 registered by

Panambur Police for the offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324,

504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.

(i)

Crime No.111/2021 registered by Surathkal

Police for the offences punishable under

Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 307 r/w 34 of

IPC.

(j)

Crime No.149/2021 registered by Surathkal

Police for the offence punishable under

Sections 341, 143, 147, 148, 323, 504,

506, 153(a), 354, 354(d) r/w 149 IPC

(k)

Crime No.46/2022 registered by Surathkal

Police for the offence punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(b), 109, 114,

302, 506, 212, 201 r/w 149 IPC.

(l)

Crime No.121/2023 registered by Surathkal

Police for the offence punishable under

Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

(m)

Crime No.107/2024 registered by Surathkal

Police for the offences punishable under

Section 298, 324(4), 196, 61(1), 49, 190 of

B.N.S Act and Section 2(a) and 2(b) under

the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of

Property Act, 1981.

- 16 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

10. The aforesaid crimes were registered against

the detenue and others from 2014 to 2024. The last crime

registered against the detenue is in Crime No.107/2024 on

15.09.2024.

11.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that as on the date of the passing of th e

detention order, out of the 13 cases filed against him, 8

cases had resulted in acquittal but the Detaining Authority

has only considered 7 cases as acquitted. The said aspect

amounts to non-consideration of relevant material by the

Detaining Authority for arriving at subjective satisfaction.

12.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

AMEENA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA &

OTHERS

4

has held in paragraph No.28 as under:

"28. In the circumstances of a given case, a

constitutional court when called upon to test the

legality of orders of preventive detention would be

entitled to examine whether:

4

(2023) 9 SCC 587

- 17 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

28.1. The order is based on the requisite

satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining

authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to

the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which

validity of the exercise of the power is predicated,

would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the

power not being satisfied;

28.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the

detaining authority has applied its mind to all

relevant circumstances and the same is not based

on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of

the statute;

28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the

purpose for which it has been conferred, or

exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised

by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires;

28.4. The detaining authority has acted

independently or under the dictation of another

body;

28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-

created rules of policy or in any other manner not

authorised by the governing statute, has disabled

itself from applying its mind to the facts of each

individual case;

- 18 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority

rests on materials which are of rationally probative

value, and the detaining authority has given due

regard to the matters as per the statutory

mandate;

28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing

in mind existence of a live and proximate link

between the past conduct of a person and the

imperative need to detain him or is based on

material which is stale;

28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite

satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with

some degree of rationality and prudence, would

consider as connected with the fact and relevant to

the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof

the satisfaction is to be reached;

28.9. The grounds on which the order of preventive

detention rests are not vague but are precise,

pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity,

inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention,

giving him the opportunity to make a suitable

representation; and

28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law,

have been strictly adhered to."

- 19 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

13.

It is clear from the aforesaid enunciation of law

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the subjective

satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is without

giving due consideration to the relevant material such as

acquittal in a case. Such non-consideration of rele vant

material amounts to violation of procedural safegua rds,

non-application of mind and arriving at a subjectiv e

satisfaction by ignoring the relevant material. It is to be

noticed that the documents furnished to the detenue

clearly indicates that the detenue has been acquitted in 8

of the criminal cases out of 13 cases, but only 7 c ases

have been considered in the grounds of detention as

having been acquitted. Hence, we are of the view of that

the order of detention and the consequent order of

confirmation suffers from non-consideration of rele vant

material.

14.

The other contention of the learned counsel for

petitioner is that the Authorities have failed to furnish the

- 20 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

documents to the detenue in the language known to h im

and non-furnishing of such documents has deprived him of

the ability to give effective representation to the

Authorities. The representation of the detenue to t he

respondent-State against the order of detention cle arly

states that several documents were produced in Engl ish

and no Kannada translation for the same was provided and

furthermore that various documents given were illeg ible.

No material has been placed on record by the respondent-

State to refute the same. It is also noticed that t he

detenue, in his representations submitted to the Authority

has clearly referred to the page numbers of the documents

for which no Kannada translation was provided and a lso

for those which were illegible. However, the respondent-

State failed to substantiate the said contentions b y

rebutting the same in their statement of objections or by

placing the material to that affect. The grounds o f the

detention and the material placed by the respondent -

Authorities indicate that the detenue has studied up to 10

th

- 21 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

Standard and he is able to read only Kannada Langua ge.

Admittedly, some of the documents furnished to the

detenue are in English Language and non-furnishing of

translated copies from English to Kannada Language

vitiates the detention order as the detenue’s right

guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of

India, is infringed.

15. It would be useful to refer to paragraphs 8 and

9 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of

HARIKISAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

5

which reads

as under:

"8. We do not agree with the High Court in its

conclusion that in every case communication of the

grounds of detention in English, so long as it

continues to be the official language of the State, is

enough compliance with the requirements of the

Constitution. If the detained person is conversant

with the English language, he will naturally be in a

position to understand the gravamen of the charge

against him and the facts and circumstances on

which the order of detention is based. But to a

5

1962 SCC Online 117

- 22 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

person who is not so conversant with the English

language, in order to satisfy the requirements of the

Constitution, 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.

9. The Constitution has guaranteed freedom of

movement throughout the territory of India and has

laid down detailed rules as to arrest and detention. It

has also, by way of limitations upon the freedom of

personal liberty, recognised the right of the State to

legislate for preventive detention, subject to certain

safeguards in favour of the detained person, as laid

down in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22. One of

those safeguards is that the detained person has the

right to be communicated the grounds on which the

order of detention has been made against him, in

order that he may be able to make his

representation against the order of detention. In our

opinion, in the circumstances of this case, it has not

been shown that the appellant had the opportunity,

which the law contemplates in his favour, of making

an effective representation against his detention. On

this ground alone we declare his detention illegal,

and set aside the Order of the High Court and the

Order of Detention passed against him."

- 23 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

16. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that non-

supplying of document in the language known the det enue

affects the detenue's right to give effective representation

as provided under the law and the same is in violation of

the Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of

the Constitution of India. Similar view has been taken by

this Court in the cases of

SMT. RAKHI PRAKASH PAWAR Vs.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BELAGAVI CITY, BELAGAVI

DISTRICT AND OTHERS

6

, SMT. P VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. THE

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY,

BANGALORE AND OTHERS

7

and SMT. SHRENIKA Vs. THE

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS.

8

17. 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 on two grounds referr ed

6

2016 (1) Kar.L.J 422 (DB)

7

2015 (6) Kar.L.J 686 (DB)

8

WP No.201957/2023 (GM-RES) D.D.31.08.2023

- 24 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

supra and hence, we need not consider the other

contentions. This Court has also taken note of the fact

that the validity of the detention order would come to an

end in a few days' time. Having held that the detention

order under challenge is contrary to law and requir es

interference, we are of the considered view that th e

impugned order of detention is passed in violation of the

fundamental rights of the detenue guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. For the

aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned detention order dated

31.01.2025 passed by the respondent

No.3, the confirmation order dated

06.02.2025 passed by the respondent

No.2 and the order dated 05.08.2025

passed by the respondent No.3, are

hereby quashed.

- 25 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:2973-DB

W.P.H.C. No.121/2025

iii. The respondents are directed to set the

detenue at liberty forthwith.

iv. Registry is directed to communicate the

operative portion of the order to the Chief

Superintendent of Central Prison,

Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, forthwith

for compliance.

v. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

JUDGE

RV

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1