- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17537 CRL.P No. 5937 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5937 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MANJUNATH J M AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE N. MARIYANNA R/AT NO. 14, YENTEGANAHALLI NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL KARNATAKA- 562 123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN SHYAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANJEGOWDA K G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH NELAMANGALA PS, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF REMAND DATED 11.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL IN CR.NO.19/2025 (NOW SPL.C.NO.291/2025) PENDING ON FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER, PRODUCED AS DOCUMENT NO.1 AND 2. Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17537 CRL.P No. 5937 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Aruna Shyam, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner's counsel and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 2. The petitioner (accused No.1), who was arrested on 11.1.2025 in Crime No.19/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (PoA) is before this Court seeking relief. 3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that he was not served with grounds of arrest, and the same is in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader on receiving instructions does not dispute that the petitioner was not served with grounds of arrest at the time of arrest. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar -vs- The State of Haryana & Another, reported in (2025) 2 SCR 424 has reiterated that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17537 CRL.P No. 5937 of 2025 grounds of arrest is not a mere formality, but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of fundamental rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person - who is arrested and detained in custody, to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee as guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty, to effectively challenge the arrest. Article 21 of the Constitution states that no person can be deprived of his liberty, except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 6. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated for non-compliance of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, and Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 and in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be released from judicial custody. 7. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Trial Court for the a period of fifteen days, and was entitled for another six weeks by this Court in Crl.P No.5731/2025. Therefore, the release of the petitioner by the Trial Court in Spl.C No.291/2025 vide order dated 29.3.2025 passed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17537 CRL.P No. 5937 of 2025 by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, and the same is made absolute. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE bkm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 122