Karnataka HC upholds detention order passed under Goondas Act against a rowdy sheeter

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has upheld the detention order passed under the Goondas Act against Bharat Kumar N, alias Gudde Bharat, a rowdy sheeter.

After perusing the material, a division bench comprising Justices Anu Sivaraman and K Manmadha Rao observed that it is reasonable to keep the detainee in preventive custody to maintain public order and security in the metropolitan city of Bengaluru.

The petition was moved by Roopa, the mother of the 25-year-old detainee Bharat Kumar, challenging the order of detention. The order was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, on January 16, 2025. The order was affirmed by the state government on February 13, 2025.

It was argued that in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 8 of the Goondas Act, it is mandatory to furnish the order of detention and also the grounds of detention with the supporting documents relied upon by the detaining authority. It was further submitted that the investigation has been completed in most of the cases against the detenue and he is on bail. It was argued that these facts were not taken into consideration by the authorities.

On the other hand, the government advocate submitted that Bharat is involved in criminal cases such as attempt to murder, extortion, assault, kidnapping, threat to life, racketeering, rape, child sexual abuse (POCSO), and sale of drugs since 2016.

The rowdy list was opened against him and he was under constant monitoring. It was found that he had been violating the bail conditions, failing to attend the court hearings and engaging in criminal activities. After careful observation, the detaining authority had found material that ordinary penal laws were insufficient to curb his incorrigible criminal conduct.

The division bench observed that the Commissioner of Police, as well as the Government, strictly complied with the procedure before passing of the Detention Order.

“The authorities on the subject have strictly taken a view that preventive detention is advised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something, but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing so. Such a statement is an expression of his views subject to satisfaction that the activities of the detainee-appellant are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Not only that, the detaining authority has also recorded that it is necessary to prevent the detainee from indulging in such activities, and the satisfaction has been drawn on the basis of the credible material on record. It is also well settled that whether the material was sufficient or not is not the course to act by objective basis subject to the satisfaction of the detaining authority,” the bench said.