<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has quashed the detention of a Kundapur native under the Goonda Act, citing non-application of mind by the authorities. </p>.<p>A division bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the detaining authority did not notice that in the majority of cases, the detenue has either been acquitted or ended in compromise. </p>.<p>On July 10, 2025, the Udupi deputy commissioner passed an order to detain Huseen Kabeer, a resident of Kalavara village, under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offences, Slum-Grabbers, and Video/Audio Pirates Act - popularly known as the Goonda Act. </p>.<p><strong>Grounds of detention</strong></p>.<p>Kabeer’s wife Dilshad filed a petition challenging the order, contending that while the grounds of detention show he was involved in 17 cases, he was acquitted in most of them and convicted only in one.</p>.One or two criminal cases cannot define a person 'goonda': Allahabad HC.<p>The detention order does not refer to these details, her petition stated. </p>.<p>After perusing the materials, the bench noted that an examination of the detention order reflects that Kabeer was acquitted in more than 50% of the cases, while three cases ended in compromise.</p>.<p>It further noted that the majority of offences against Kabeer relate to the theft of Jersey cows and illegal cattle transportation. </p>.<p>The bench further noted that the order referencing Section 3 (1) of the Act states that Kabeer be detained at the Central Prison in Mysuru, without mentioning any grounds under Section 2 regarding the type of offence committed. </p>.<p><strong>Serious lapse</strong></p>.<p>The bench cited the High Court of Karnataka order in Prema vs State of Karnataka and Others, which held that failing to specifically mention the grounds of detention constitutes a serious lapse by the detaining authority, indicating a clear non-application of mind. </p>.<p>“In addition, in the statement of objections filed by the state, it is not denied that the detention order has not set out the relevant provision. The Supreme Court in the case of Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland and Others has held that the satisfaction of the detaining authority has to be set out after application of mind and cannot be by a casual reference or a bald recital,” the bench said. </p>
<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has quashed the detention of a Kundapur native under the Goonda Act, citing non-application of mind by the authorities. </p>.<p>A division bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the detaining authority did not notice that in the majority of cases, the detenue has either been acquitted or ended in compromise. </p>.<p>On July 10, 2025, the Udupi deputy commissioner passed an order to detain Huseen Kabeer, a resident of Kalavara village, under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offences, Slum-Grabbers, and Video/Audio Pirates Act - popularly known as the Goonda Act. </p>.<p><strong>Grounds of detention</strong></p>.<p>Kabeer’s wife Dilshad filed a petition challenging the order, contending that while the grounds of detention show he was involved in 17 cases, he was acquitted in most of them and convicted only in one.</p>.One or two criminal cases cannot define a person 'goonda': Allahabad HC.<p>The detention order does not refer to these details, her petition stated. </p>.<p>After perusing the materials, the bench noted that an examination of the detention order reflects that Kabeer was acquitted in more than 50% of the cases, while three cases ended in compromise.</p>.<p>It further noted that the majority of offences against Kabeer relate to the theft of Jersey cows and illegal cattle transportation. </p>.<p>The bench further noted that the order referencing Section 3 (1) of the Act states that Kabeer be detained at the Central Prison in Mysuru, without mentioning any grounds under Section 2 regarding the type of offence committed. </p>.<p><strong>Serious lapse</strong></p>.<p>The bench cited the High Court of Karnataka order in Prema vs State of Karnataka and Others, which held that failing to specifically mention the grounds of detention constitutes a serious lapse by the detaining authority, indicating a clear non-application of mind. </p>.<p>“In addition, in the statement of objections filed by the state, it is not denied that the detention order has not set out the relevant provision. The Supreme Court in the case of Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs State of Nagaland and Others has held that the satisfaction of the detaining authority has to be set out after application of mind and cannot be by a casual reference or a bald recital,” the bench said. </p>