- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8902 WP No. 3301 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3301 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: F.M.FIROZ KURESHI S/O. F.M. FAROOQ KURISHI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.230, 7TH CROSS, “B” BLOCK SUBHASH NAGAR, BEGURU BENGALURU – 560 068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-01. 2. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS HOUSE NO.234, C.K.NAGAR HOSA ROAD, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BENGALURU – 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THEJESH.P, HCGP FOR R-1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REMAND ORDERS DATED 14.12.2024 AND 16.12.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN CRIME NO.554/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 118(1), 3(5), 329(4), 351, 79 OF BNS AND SECTION 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V-A) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATTROCITIES ACT 1989 BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8902 WP No. 3301 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 relief: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, quashing the impugned remand orders dated 14.12.2024 & 16.12.2024 vide Annexure – A in Crime No.554/2024 pending on the file of LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge at Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 3(5), 329(4), 351, 79 of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 by Parappana Agrahara Police in the interest of justice and equity. (b) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ declaring that the arrest of petition dated 13.12.2024 at 06.30 p.m. by the respondent police in Cr.No.554/2024 is illegal for non-compliance of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 & in T.Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India – (2024) 7 SCC 576 vide Annexure – F. (c) To pass any such order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and perused - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8902 WP No. 3301 of 2025 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 against the petitioner inter alia alleging that the petitioner – accused No.1 was guilty of offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 and Section 118(1), 3(5), 329(4), 351 and 79 of BNS, 2023, the respondent No.1 – Police registered an FIR in Crime No.554/2024 against the petitioner on 06.12.2024 pursuant to which, the petitioner – accused No.1 was arrested on 13.12.2024 at 06:30 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 06.02.2025 was passed by this Court as hereunder: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for the State and perused the material on record. 2. In this petition, petitioner-accused No.1 seeks declaration that his arrest by the 1st respondent – Police on 13.12.2024 was illegal as well as setting aside of the impugned remand orders dated 14.12.2024 and 16.12.2024 at Annexure-A in Crime No.554/2024 registered by the 1st respondent – police for the offences punishable under - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8902 WP No. 3301 of 2025 Sections 118(1), 3(5), 329(4), 351 and 79 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) r/w 3(2)(v-a) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending on the file of LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru and for other reliefs. 3. By way of an interim prayer, petitioner-accused No.1 seeks directions to the 1st respondent - State to release him on interim bail and for other reliefs. 4. Apart from urging other contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds of arrest of the petitioner had not been communicated, informed or furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest and consequently, the impugned arrest of the petitioner and the impugned orders of remand are 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 them in accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and consequently, the impugned arrest and the impugned remand order deserve to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be released on interim bail immediately without any further delay. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the 1st respondent - State would oppose the submissions made by the petitioner and contended that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the material on record, in particular the impugned arrest of the petitioner and the impugned remand orders would prima-facie indicate that the same are contrary to Articles 21, 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments coupled with the fact that the grounds of arrest were not intimated, furnished or communicated to the petitioner as required in law and as such, by way of an interim arrangement and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharastra & others – (2021) 2 SCC 427, I - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8902 WP No. 3301 of 2025 deem it just and appropriate to direct the 1st respondent- State 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 two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of two weeks from today. 7. The 1st respondent - State is directed to release the petitioner forthwith without any delay and immediately upon a receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Jail Authorities forthwith without any delay both electronically and telephonically. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.2 returnable by 27.02.2025. Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents to seek vacation / modification of this order. Re-list on 27.02.2025. 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 No.1 without communicating, intimating or informing the grounds of arrest as mandatorily - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8902 WP No. 3301 of 2025 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 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 remand orders dated 14.12.2024 and 16.12.2024 vide Annexure-A in Crime No.554/2024 pending on the file of the LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (CCH-71), Bengaluru, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl. / SV