- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2242-DB WPHC No. 100003 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WPHC NO.100003 OF 2025 BETWEEN: NETRA SANTOSH BADIGER, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. #61/B, BADIGER ONI, BETAGERI, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591233. - PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY K. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2, ALI ASKER ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560051. 3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION, 2G4W+MQ2, 2ND CROSS ROAD, BOVIPALYA, NAGAPURA, BENGALURU-560086. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS TO THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER & ETC. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2242-DB WPHC No. 100003 of 2025 THIS WPHC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the respondents to produce her husband, Sri Santosh Badiger, contending amongst others that the respondents have taken her husband into custody illegally at the instance of the family member of a police personnel with one of the Police Stations in Bengaluru. 2. The respondents, with service of notice of the petition, have filed Action Taken Report. Sri G.K. Hiregoudar, the learned Principal Government Advocate, relied upon this Report to persuade this Court to accept respondents’ case that the petitioner’s husband has gone absconding because of the investigation underway pursuant to the first information report [FIR] in Crime No. 6/2025 with the third respondent. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2242-DB WPHC No. 100003 of 2025 3. However, this Court on 29.01.2025, while observing that this Court will refrain from making any comment on the investigation even if warranted in that peculiarities, has directed the petition to be listed permitting the concerned police officers to file Further Action Taken Report. Today, the petitioner is present before this Court, and the police have produced her husband as well. The petitioner states that her signatures have been obtained stating that those papers would be required to present a bail petition and she has not given instructions to file this petition. 4. Sri Manju A, the Police Inspector, Mahalaxmipuram Police Station, when queried submits that the petitioner’s husband is taken into custody and would be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate as is required after completing the arrest formalities. In fact, the officer relies upon a Further Status Report filed by way of an affidavit to bring on record, amongst others, that the petitioner right through knew about her husband’s - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2242-DB WPHC No. 100003 of 2025 whereabouts and that this is established not only by the Call Details Record [CDR] but also by the CCTV footage. 5. The respondent’s specific case is that both the petitioner and her husband were together, both on 26.01.2027 and 27.01.2027 at Harogeri, and both have been in touch and acted in cohorts to ensure that some of the officers are brought under duress because of these proceedings. The petitioner was aware of all the circumstances even when the complaint was listed before this Court on 29.01.2025. In this regard, the Police Officer has referred to the statement by Sri Ramachandra Badiger, [the petitioner’s relative] in his affidavit. 6. This Court must observe that if the petitioner’s husband is taken into custody as part of investigation, he must seek bail as is permissible in law. Further, this Court must observe that the Police Officers must place on record the measures taken as part of investigation and the circumstances in which the petitioner’s husband is taken into custody after this Court’s hearing on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2242-DB WPHC No. 100003 of 2025 29.01.2025 so that all circumstances are available before the jurisdictional Court to decide on the merits of a request for bail. 7. Lastly, this Court must consider whether there must be any action against the petitioner for perjury. However, with the explanation as stated above, this Court is of the view that, subject to their locus, the jurisdictional Police Officers must be at liberty to take appropriate action even as against the concerned member who has enrolled with the Bar Council if there is a case for the same in terms of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, 1965. The petition stands disposed of subject to observations as aforesaid. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1