Prevention Detention Order Would Be Vitiated If It Is Based On Offences Committed By Detenue When He Was Juvenile: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court was considering a Petition filed by the petitioner seeking the quashing of a detention order.
While ordering the release of a detenue, the Karnataka High Court has held that the order of detention would be vitiated when several of the offences which were relied on to justify the preventive detention were committed at a time when the detenue had not attained the age of 18 years, and these were not the cases where he was tried as an adult for heinous offences.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed by the petitioner seeking the quashing of the detention order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, and also the consequent release of Abicyrill @ Abhi from detention.
The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju stated, “In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, where several of the offences which are relied on to justify the preventive detention were committed at a time when the detenue had not attained the age of 18 years and were not cases where he was tried as an adult for heinous offences, we are of the opinion, that the very fact that those offences were taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the subjective satisfaction as to the detention of the detenue by itself would vitiate the Order of Detention and will go against the very purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 24 thereof.”
Senior Counsel Hashmath Pasha represented the Petitioner while Special Public Prosecutor B.A.Belliappa represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the petitioner’s case that the order of detention was passed in view of ten cases registered against him. It was further submitted that the detenue is aged 19 years and many of the offences taken into account to pass the order were committed when he was a juvenile (when he was below the age of 18 years). It was further submitted that in view of provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, specifically Section 24 thereof, there can be no detention based on offences committed by a person below the age of 18 years.
The respondent contended that the order of detention was passed under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985. It was argued that the detenue has been habitually indulging in serious criminal and anti-social activities involving offences of murder, attempt to murder, assault, obstruction of public servants and offences under the Arms Act, thereby disturbing public order.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the order of detention specifically stated that the detenue was aged 19 years and his date of birth was stated to be October 8. 2006. The Bench further noted that in some of the cases which were admittedly relied upon to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the preventive detention was required, the detenue was below the age of 18 as on the date of commission of the offence.
Referring to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Bench stated, “The intention of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act is to see that a child who has committed an offence does not suffer any disqualification on account of such commission. The only exception is with regard to a child who is tried as an adult under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is therefore clear that it is only in the case of a child who has completed or is above the age of 16 years and has committed a heinous offence and has been tried as an adult, that the details of the conviction can be retained and that too, only by the Children's Court.”
The Bench was of the view that the order of detention would be vitiated on the ground that several of the offences which were relied on to justify the preventive detention were committed at a time when the detenue had not attained the age of 18 years, and these were not the cases where he was tried as an adult for heinous offences.
“In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the detention order under challenge in this writ petition cannot be sustained. The detention order is accordingly set aside”, the Bench ordered.
Cause Title: Smt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:23865-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Counsel Hashmath Pasha, Advocate Kariappa N.A.
Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor B.A.Belliappa, High Court Govt Pleader P. Thejesh