Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 45721 (KAR)

SANTHOSH KUMAR S.H. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/2379/2025 · 2025-02-24

S R Krishna Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8410 WP No. 2379 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2379 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SANTHOSH KUMAR S.H. S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONALLI, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 217. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KENGERI P.S., REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. SMT JAYALAKSHMI W/O RAMU S AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.202, ALOKA ROAD, ILAVALA, MYSURU – 570 016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R-1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W 482 OF CPC, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE ARREST OF PETITIONER AS ILLEGAL AND IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLES 21 AND 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN CRIME NO.31/2025 REGISTERED BY THE KENGERI P.S. FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 376, 420 OF IPC, CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED REMAND ORDER DATED 25.01.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-C. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8410 WP No. 2379 of 2025 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, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “a) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to declare the arrest of petitioner as illegal and in gross violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India in Crime No.31/2025 registered by the Kengeri P.S., for offence p/u/s 506, 376, 420 of IPC. Consequently set aside the Impugned Remand Order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru vide Annexure-C. b) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for 1st respondent-State and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 – complainant - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8410 WP No. 2379 of 2025 against the petitioner inter alia alleging that the petitioner was guilty of offences punishable under Sections 506, 376 and 420 IPC, the respondent No.1 – Police registered an FIR in Crime No.31/2025 against the petitioner on 23.01.2025, pursuant to which, the petitioner – sole accused was arrested on 24.01.2025 at 02:45 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 29.01.2025 was passed by this Court as hereunder: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.1. Copies to be served. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.2 returnable by 19.02.2025. In this petition, petitioner seeks declaration that his arrest on 24.01.2025 in Crime No.31/2025 by the 1st respondent is illegal and also quashing of the impugned remand order at Annexure-C dated 25.01.2025 passed by the VI Addl.CJM, Bangalore and for other reliefs. 2. By way of an interim prayer, petitioner seek directions to the 1st respondent - Police to release petitioner on interim bail in Crime No.31/2025 registered for the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8410 WP No. 2379 of 2025 offences punishable under Sections 506, 376 and 420 of IPC. 3. Apart from urging other contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the arrest memo in order to point out that the 1st respondent had falsely recorded that the grounds of arrest of the petitioner had been furnished and explained to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. In this context, it is contended that the impugned arrest of the petitioner without intimating, furnishing or providing grounds or reasons of arrest to the petitioner is 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, 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 and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to be released on interim bail immediately without any further delay. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP for the 1st respondent - State would oppose the submissions made by the petitioner and contend that he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for by him. 5. A perusal of the material on record, would prima- facie indicate that 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 and consequently, the arrest of the petitioner being contrary to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8410 WP No. 2379 of 2025 Articles 21, 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, 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 and the concerned Jail Authorities to release the petitioner on interim bail for a period of three weeks from today, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; b) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation; c) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of one week from today. 6. The 1st respondent-Police and 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. Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents to seek vacation / modification of this order. Re-list on 19.02.2025. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the 1st respondent – Police and concerned Jail Authorities - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8410 WP No. 2379 of 2025 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 INSC 162; 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, communicated or intimated to the petitioner at the time of his 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. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8410 WP No. 2379 of 2025 (ii) The impugned remand order dated 25.01.2025 vide Annexure-C in Crime No.31/2025 pending on the file of the VI ACJM, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.