The petitioner (wife) filed a habeas corpus petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging the preventive detention of her husband Sanju Vithhal Kadakol, who was detained under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985 by the District Magistrate, Bagalkote on 06.07.2026, despite being on bail in all pending criminal cases. The court examined whether the detention was valid, focusing on three key issues: whether the State had wrongly used preventive detention as a substitute for bail cancellation, whether the alleged offences affected 'public order' (as distinct from mere 'law and order'), and whether non-supply of relied-upon documents to the detenu violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Applying the 'three concentric circles' doctrine and relying on Supreme Court precedents including Rekha v. State of TN and Mallada K Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, the court held that the offences disclosed a law-and-order situation at most, not a public order threat, and that the State had failed to seek bail cancellation before resorting to the extraordinary power of preventive detention. The court further held that non-supply of documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority to reach its subjective satisfaction violated Article 22(5), and that the Advisory Board's confirmation did not bar the High Court's review, rendering the detention orders invalid.