CASE NAME: Smt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
CASE NUMBER: WPHC No. 35 of 2026
COURT: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
DATE: 29 April 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
FACTS
On 12/11/18, Smt. Marry Usha, through a Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus), seeks to quash a Detention Order (dated 11/12/2025) placed on her son Abicyrill @ Abhi (then 19) and secure his release from the Central Prison in Bellary. The said order 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 Piracy Act, 1985 (commonly known as “PODA”). The order referred to several serious crimes committed by the detainee, including Murder and Attempted Murder, Assault, and Violations of the Arms Act (all of which were the basis of ten different cases). There were multiple cases cited in the order where the detainee was under the age of 18 at the time of the offence.
ISSUES
- Whether an order of preventive detention can be legally sustained if the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction relies on offences committed by the detainee while they were a juvenile?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- Section 2(12) and Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER
The petitioner contends that the detention order is unlawful because it is based on juvenile offences. Relying on Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, counsel for the petitioner argued that no detention or disqualification can be imposed on someone based on offences committed when he or she was 17 years of age or younger.
RESPONDENTS
The State defended the detention order, contending that there was a valid subjective satisfaction to support the detention of an individual who has committed a serious offence against the law, and that he has continued with this pattern of behaviour to date. Prosecution’s evidence established that the detention had been opened against the same individual in late 2024 at Andersonpet and Oorgaum Police Stations based upon his continued record of antisocial behaviour and the use of deadly force.
ANALYSIS
The Court looked at both the crime dates and the detainee’s date of birth (08.10.2006) to find that although he was 19 years old when he was arrested on detention orders, most of the foundational crimes which occurred between January and February 2024 were committed when he was under 18 years old. The Court then looked at the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, Section 24, which states that any child who commits an offence cannot have their conviction used against them. It goes on to say that if a child commits a heinous offence after turning 16 years of age, they can be tried as an adult in the Children’s Court pursuant to Section 19 of the Act. Finally, the Court found that the use of the offences committed by the child while they were under 18 years of age to support a preventive detention order vitiates the order, which is fundamentally against the purpose of protecting the child that the Act was designed to achieve.
JUDGMENT
The court annulled the decision to confine the plaintiff as of December 11, 2025, upon granting him a writ of habeas corpus. In accordance with the judgment of the court, the superintendent of the central prison, Bellary, is to release the plaintiff from custody without further delay, unless he has been sentenced for another offence arising out of the same act for which he is being detained for.
CONCLUSION:
This judgement is further evidence of the law’s strict protections afforded juveniles under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which prohibits the use of juvenile criminal offence records to deny a person their lawful liberty, which should not be taken away by Government in accordance with law, where such person would not be convicted of a further offence until being tried as an adult for the heinous act that they committed as a juvenile; and hence having found them guilty cannot then be the basis for finding a juvenile subjectively satisfied to support a recorded preventative detention order.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: VINEET SEERVI
Read the judgement copy below:
Smt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
