- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13359 WP NO.5564 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5564 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: DR. M.V. NAGARAJ S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT ANURADHA'S BUILDING, OPP. GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, KUVEMPU NAGAR, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAYA C.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. DR. VISHWANATH K.N., S/O K.C. NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, CHAIRMAN, S.J.M. LAW COLLEGE, BENGALURU - 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 27.03.2025) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13359 WP NO.5564 OF 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.0002/2025 OF THE CYBER CRIME POLICE, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 66(C), 66(D) OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 AND SECTIONS 61, 318(4), 319(2), 111(1), 112 AND 238 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS), 2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND IN ARREST INTIMATION LETTER VIDE ANNEXURE-E; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks following relief: "Quash the impugned Criminal Investigation Proceedings which is initiated against the petitioner in Cr.No.0002/2025 of the Cyber Crime Police, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 61, 318(4), 319(2), 111(1), 112 and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 vide Annexure-C and in Arrest Intimation Letter vide Annexure-E; and etc." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13359 WP NO.5564 OF 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 – complainant against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 61, 318(4), 319(2), 111(1), 112 and 238 of BNS, 2023, the respondent No.1 – Police registered an FIR in Crime No.2/2025 against the petitioner on 23.01.2025 pursuant to which, the petitioner – accused was arrested on 30.01.2025 at 11:30 p.m. without communicating, furnishing or intimating the grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court in the present petition and an interim order dated 27.02.2025 as hereunder:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the 1st respondent-State and perused the material on record. 1. In this petition, petitioner (A5) seek quashing of the impugned FIR in Crime No.2/2025 of the Cyber Crime Police, Bangalore city, for the offences punishable under Sections 66-C, 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 61, 318(4), 319(2), 111(1), 112 and 238 of BNS, 2023 and arrest intimation dated 15.02.2025 pending on the file of the 45th ACJM, Bangalore City and for other reliefs. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13359 WP NO.5564 OF 2025 2. By way of an interim prayer, petitioner seeks direction to the 1st respondent-Police to release him on interim bail. 3. Apart from urging other contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the material on record in order to point out that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated or furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest at 3 p.m on 15.02.2025. In this context, it is contended that the impugned arrest is illegal and vitiated being contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India – (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – (2024) 8 SCC 254, and Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana – 2025 INSC 162, inasmuch as the reasons for arrest and the grounds of arrest had not been intimated, informed or communicated to the petitioner in writing, much less, explained to him in accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments. It is also submitted that under identical circumstances in relation to accused No.4 – Sri.M.C.Varun Kumar, this Court granted interim bail vide order dated 18.02.2025 and consequently, by virtue of the doctrine of parity also, the petitioner is entitled to be released on interim bail immediately without any further delay. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP for the 1st respondent would oppose the submissions made by the petitioner and contend that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record, in particular the impugned arrest order would prima-facie indicate that the same are contrary to Articles 21, 22(1) and 22(5) of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13359 WP NO.5564 OF 2025 Constitution of India as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments since the grounds of arrest were not furnished or communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest on 15.02.2025 at 3 p.m. and in the light of the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.4754/2025 qua accused No.4 – Sri.M.C.Varun Kumar, by applying / invoking the doctrine of parity, by way of an interim arrangement and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the 1st respondent-Police as well as the concerned Jail authorities to release the petitioner on interim bail for a period of four weeks from today, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; b) Petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future; c) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. d) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of two weeks from today. The respondent No.1 as well as the concerned Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner forthwith without any delay and immediately upon a receipt of a copy of this order. Issue emergent notice to the 2nd respondent returnable by 27.03.2025. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13359 WP NO.5564 OF 2025 Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents to seek vacation / modification of this order. Re-list on 27.03.2025. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the 1st respondent – Police as well as to the concerned Jail Authorities forthwith without any delay both electronically and telephonically. Hand delivery of this order is permitted.” 4. As already noticed by this Court in the aforesaid interim order, the respondent No.1 – Police Authorities had illegally arrested the petitioner – accused without communicating, intimating or informing the grounds of arrest as mandatorily required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the following judgments. i. Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another - 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 283. ii. Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India - (2024) 7 SCC 576. iii. Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2024) 8 SCC 254. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and a perusal of the material on record which indicates that the Grounds of Arrest had not been furnished to the petitioner at the time of his - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13359 WP NO.5564 OF 2025 arrest, I am of the view that the arrest of the petitioner and his consequent remand deserve to be quashed. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned arrest of the petitioner vide Arrest note / Intimation letter at Annexure-E dated 30.01.2025 in Crime No.2/2025 pending on the file of the XLV ACJM, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE ARK/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73