Preventive Detention Aims To Ensure Peace In Society: Karnataka High Court Denies Relief To Man Involved In 45 Cases

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the wife of a detenu questioning his detention under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Traffic Offencers, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates) Act, 1985.A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar noted that the man is involved in 45 criminal cases registered at different police stations. It said,“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.”In its order dated July 12, the bench also lamented that the fear of law is diminishing and crime rate is shooting up, as reflected in the statistics furnished by the National Crime Records Bureau, Bengaluru. "Women & children and aged & ailing have become the vulnerable sections at the hands of hooligans...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 petitioner had challenged the detention order on the ground that detenu didn't know how to read and write Kannada and English yet the papers on which the impugned orders was framed was not translated to Tamil.The authorities opposed the plea saying the detenue knows all the three languages namely Tamil, Kannada & English and he was furnished with copies of all the documents that were fully legible. Since several offences including of grave offences are pending trial before various courts against him the petition be dismissed. The bench on going through the records noted that the school transfer certificate specifically states that the detenu has studied Tamil & Kannada as optional subjects till 7th std, although medium of instruction was Tamil. In his own handwriting he had addressed a letter for grant of Transfer Certificate and it was in English. Even his signature was also in English. Thus it concluded that petitioner knows reading & writing all the three languages. "In any event, it was open to the detenue to seek the Tamil version of all the documents and the Order of Detention, which he did not do for reasons best known to him,” it added.Court observed that authorities, who have field knowledge, form the opinion as to whether detention of the kind is warranted, keeping in view a host of factors. In this case, the Detention Order was duly examined by the State and even the Advisory Board, comprising of three serving Judges had looked into the matter, and had chosen not to recommend for the revocation of the 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.”Dismissing the last contention that the detenue has secured bail in all pending matters against him, the court opined “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.” It added, “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'. Therefore, the same cannot be invoked mindlessly for granting reprieve disregarding its consequences on the larger interest of the community. 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.” Accordingly it dismissed the petition.Appearance: Advocate M R Nanjunda Gowda for Petitioner. SPP B A Belliappa a/w HCGP Anoop Kumar for R1 TO R4Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 318Case Title: Nandini AND The DG & IGP of Police, Bengaluru & OthersCase No: WPHC NO.55 OF 2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Preventive Detention Aims To Ensure Peace In Society: Karnataka High Court Denies Relief To Man Involved In 45 Cases

Mustafa Plumber

Tags