- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23221 CRL.P No. 8321 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8321 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI MOHAMMED MASOOD S/O SRI MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1130/349/1 2ND FLOOR, LEO CONVENT SCHOOL ROAD, BHARATH NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 077. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KRISHNA B.J, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION SAMPEGEHALLI, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRIME NO.129/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 64, 115(2), 49, 127(2), 351(2) OF BNS 2023, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF 41ST ACJM, BENGALURU CITY AND FIR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT-SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23221 CRL.P No. 8321 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused in Crime No.139/2025 registered by Sampigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 115(2), 49, 127(2), 351(2) of BNS, 2023, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.139/2025 was registered by Sampigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences based on the first information dated 11.04.2025 received from the victim girl. During the course of investigation, petitioner was arrested on 12.04.2025 and produced before the Court on 13.04.2025. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.3278/2025 was rejected on 03.05.2025. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that petitioner was not - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23221 CRL.P No. 8321 of 2025 produced before the Trial Court within 24 hours of his arrest, and therefore, he is entitled for the relief sought in the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP who has opposed the petition, submits that there are serious charges against the petitioner. Investigation of the case is still under progress. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that petitioner was arrested in the present case on 12.04.2025 at 4.10 p.m. He was produced in the home office of the jurisdictional Magistrate on 13.04.2025 at 5.00 p.m. which is beyond 24 hours from the time of his arrest. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - AIR 1999 SC 1403, in paragraph 12, has observed as under: "12. If the police officer is forbidden from keeping an arrested person beyond twenty-four hours without order of a Magistrate, what should happen to the arrested person after the said period? It is a constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established in law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23221 CRL.P No. 8321 of 2025 Close to its heels the Constitution directs that the person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest. The only time permitted by Article 22 of the Constitution to be excluded from the said period of 24 hours is “the time necessary for going from the place of arrest to the court of the Magistrate”. Only under two contingencies can the said direction be obviated. One is when the person arrested is an “enemy alien”. Second is when the arrest is under any law for preventive detention. In all other cases the Constitution has prohibited peremptorily that “no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate”. 8. In the present case, the learned Magistrate having noticed that the petitioner was not produced before the court within 24 hours from the time of his arrest, had sought for explanation from the Investigation Officer. Though the Investigation Officer had furnished certain explanation, the same was rejected by the learned Magistrate and an order was passed to bring to the notice of the Commissioner of Police about the fact that accused who was arrested was not produced before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours. In similar - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23221 CRL.P No. 8321 of 2025 circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ (supra), has held that arrest has become otiose and accordingly, directed his release on bail. 9. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Investigation Officer has not produced the accused before the Court within 24 hours which is in violation of Section 57 of Cr.PC, and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj's case supra, I am of the opinion that petitioner's prayer for grant of regular bail is required to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order: 10. The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.139/2025 registered by Sampigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 115(2), 49, 127(2), 351(2) of BNS, 2023, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23221 CRL.P No. 8321 of 2025 Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons; c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future; e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK