IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. P. SANDESH WRIT PETITION HABEAS CORPUS NO.42 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMI WIFE OF ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.60, 5TH CROSS CHOLORUPALYA MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU NORTH-560 023. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME (LAW AND ORDER) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BENGALURU CENTRAL PRISON BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI. S.V. GIRIKUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3) THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER OF DETENTION DATED 12.09.2018 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.16/CRM(4)/DTN/2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. (B) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY DETENTION CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 19.09.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.H.D.502 SST 2018, BENGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C. (C) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY ORDER DATED 22.10.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN H.D.502 SST 2018, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E. (D) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO SET THE DETENUE MARUTHI @ MANJUNATH @ MATTIMANJA, SON OF ANJINAPPA @ ANJINEYA AT LIBERTY BY RELEASING HIM FROM PRISON FORTHWITH.
THIS WPHC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is the mother of the detenue namely, Maruthi @ Manjunatha @ Mattimanja. That she has concern in the life and interest of the detenue. Hence, she has filed this petition.
2. The second respondent-Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City passed an order of detention dated 12.09.2018. The same was served on the detenue on the same day under acknowledgment. The copy of the grounds of detention along with relevant translation were also served on the detenue. No representation was submitted. Thereafter, the detention order of the second respondent was forwarded to the State Government for its approval. The State Government, by its order dated 19.09.2018 approved the order of detention forwarded by second respondent. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Advisory Board. The report was submitted by the Advisory Board confirming the order of detention. Thereafter, the State Government by its order dated 22.10.2018 confirmed the same. Even since then, the detenue has been in preventive detention.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of detention is illegal. He primarily contends that there is a variation between the grounds of detention furnished to him in Kannada language vide Annexure-B and the grounds of detention furnished to him in English language. He points out the anomalies, insofar as it pertains to Ground Nos.19, 20 and 21 in the English version. It is narrated that bail was granted to the detenue on the dates mentioned therein. However, the grounds of detention in Kannada language does not indicate that bail was granted to the detenue. Hence, he pleads that his right to make a representation is affected. Therefore, the order of detention becomes void and that further detention becomes illegal.
4. He further pleads that the bail orders were not placed for consideration before the Detaining Authority. Therefore, subjective satisfaction has not been arrived at by the Detaining Authority. The same is disputed by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GAUTAM JAIN -VS- UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2017) 3 SCC 133 with reference to Para-19 onwards, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when there are several grounds of detention, finding fault with one or two of the grounds of detention would not render the detention as being invalid, but the same would not amount to absence of subjective satisfaction. On considering the various previous judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held therein that, if it is found that the detention order contains many grounds and even if some of them were to be rejected, the principle of segregation contained in Section 5(A) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 gets attracted. The reasoning of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on considering the previous judgment is as follows:
“26. We, thus, reject the contention of the appellant that, in the instant case, the detention order is based only on one ground. Once it is found that the detention order contains many grounds, even if one of them is to be rejected, principle of segregation contained in Section 5-A gets attracted.”
5. Therefore, even if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted with regard to the variations in the matter pertaining to grant of bail in the grounds of detention vis-a-vis Kannada and English language, the same cannot be a ground to quash the order of detention. In all, there are almost 22 grounds, on the basis of which the Detaining Authority has arrived at its subjective satisfaction.
6. Under the circumstance, by following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find that the plea urged by the petitioner can be accepted by this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has since been adequately and substantially covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to hereinabove. Since, no other contentions are urged, we do not find any ground to allow the petition.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE ST