- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6989 WP No. 1829 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1171 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1829 OF 2025 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.1171 OF 2025 (GM-RES) IN WP No. 1829/2025: BETWEEN: MS. JASMINE BATRA D/O. CHARANJEET SINGH BATRA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NW-117 B, GALI NO.8, VISHNU GARDEN, TILAK NAGAR, DELHI – 110 018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH S & CO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS SIIB, AIRPORT AND AIR CARGO COMPLEX KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 300. 2. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISION, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BANGALORE – 560 100. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AKASH B. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6989 WP No. 1829 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1171 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES, BANGALORE IN OR NO. 68/2024-25 C.NO. GEN/INV/SMLG/5/2024 FOR OFFENCES UNDER SEC. 132 OR 133 OR 135 OR 135A OR 136 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 AND U/S SEC. 8 OF NDPS AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH AS HER CUSTODY IS ILLEGAL VIDE ANNX-C; QUASH THE ARREST MEMO UNDER ANNX-B DTD. 09.01.2025 BEARING NO. CBIC-DIN-20250172MP000042474A ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND ETC. IN WP NO.1171/2025: BETWEEN: 1. AYUSHI RAGHUVANSHI D/O SATISH RAGHUVANSHI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT B-4/135, FIRST FLOOR, PASCHIM VIHAR WEST DELHI DELHI-110063 2. RASHMEET KAUR D/O BALBIR SINGH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT WZ-G-28, SANT NAGAR EXTN TILAK NAGAR S O, WEST DELHI DELHI-110018 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6989 WP No. 1829 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1171 of 2025 AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA BY SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS SIIB, AIRPORT AND AIR CARGO COMPLEX KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DEVANAHALLI BANGALORE-560300 REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL CENTRAL GOVT COUNSELS CHAMBER HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560001 2. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BANGALORE-560100 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AKASH B. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ARREST MEMO NO. GEN/INV/SML G/5/2024 CBIC.DIN.20250172MP000000F3ED DATED 09/01/2025 ISSUED TO THE P1 IN O.R.NO. 68/2024-25 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXIII ACC AND S.SPL.J BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A); QUASH ARREST MEMO NO. C.NO. GEN/INV/SML G/5/2024-SIIB. CBIC.DIN.20250172MP000033D1B DATED 09/01/2025 ISSUED TO THE P2 IN O.R.NO. 68/2024-25 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXIII ACC AND S.SPL.J BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6989 WP No. 1829 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1171 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Both these petitions arise out of the impugned proceedings in O.R.No.68/2024-25 on the file of the XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions / Special Judge, Bengaluru. The petitioner in W.P.No.1829/2025 is the accused No.1 while petitioners in W.P.No.1171/2025 are arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the said proceedings. In both the petitions, petitioners seeks quashing of their arrest vide impugned arrest memo dated 09.01.2025 and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that in both the petitions, the petitioners sought for interim relief by way of interim bail, which was considered by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.1829/2025 and order dated 17.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.1171/2025 as hereunder: (i) Order dated 23.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.1829/2025, reads as under: “The question of maintainability is kept open for the present. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6989 WP No. 1829 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1171 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Sri.Akash B.Shetty, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondents. Copies to be served. 1. In this petition, petitioner-accused No.1 seek quashing of the impugned remand application and arrest memo at Annexures-A and B dated 09.01.2025 and for other reliefs. 2. By way of an interim prayer, petitioner seek directions to the 2nd respondent to release the petitioner on interim bail in O.R.No.68/2024-25 for offences punishable under Sections 132 or 133 or 135 or 135A or 136 of the Customs Act and under Section 8 of the NDPS Act, pending on the file of the XXXIII City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spel.Court for NDPS cases, Bangalore. 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 2nd respondent had falsely recorded that the grounds of arrest of the petitioner had been explained to the petitioner at the time of arresting her. In this context, it is contended that the impugned arrest memo 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, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6989 WP No. 1829 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1171 of 2025 explained to her in accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and consequently, the impugned arrest memo deserve to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be released on interim bail immediately without any further delay. 3.1 It is further submitted that under identical circumstances in relation to the accused Nos. 2 and 3, this Court in W.P.No.1171/2025 granted interim bail vide order dated 17.01.2025 and by virtue of doctrine of parity, the petitioner – accused No.1, who also stands on the same footing, would also be entitled to an identical order of interim bail in the present petition also. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by the petitioner and contend that she is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for by her. 5. A perusal of the material on record, in particular the impugned arrest memo would prima-facie indicate that the same are contrary to 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 and in the light of the interim bail granted in favour of accused Nos. 2 and 3 in W.P.No.1171/2025 dated 17.01.2025, 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 2nd respondent to release the petitioner on interim bail for a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today, subject to the following conditions: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6989 WP No. 1829 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1171 of 2025 a) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; b) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future; c) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation; d) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of one week from today. The 2nd respondent is 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 07.02.2025 along with W.P.No.1171/2025. Hand delivery of this order is permitted.” (ii) The order dated 17.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.1171/2025 reads as under: “The question of maintainability is kept open for the present. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Sri.Akash B.Shetty, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondents. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6989 WP No. 1829 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1171 of 2025 Copies to be served. 1. In this petition, petitioners seek quashing of the impugned arrest memos at Annexures-A and B dated 09.01.2025 and for other reliefs. 2. By way of an interim prayer, petitioners seek directions to the 2nd respondent to release petitioners on interim bail in O.R.No.68/2024-25 for offences punishable under Section 8 of the NDPS Act, pending on the file of the XXXIIII ACC and S.Spl.Judge, Bangalore. 3. Apart from urging other contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the arrest memos in order to point out that the 2nd respondent had falsely recorded that the grounds of arrest of the petitioners had been explained to the petitioner at the time of arresting them. In this context, it is contended that the impugned arrest memos 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 petitioners in writing, much less, explained to them in accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and consequently, the impugned arrest memos deserve to be quashed and the petitioners are entitled to be released on interim bail immediately without any further delay. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by the petitioners and contend that they are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for by them. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6989 WP No. 1829 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1171 of 2025 5. A perusal of the material on record, in particular the impugned arrest memos would prima-facie indicate that the same are contrary to 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 and as such, 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 2nd respondent to release both the petitioners 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 not involve in similar offences in future; c) Each of the petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of one week from today. The 2nd respondent is directed to release both the petitioners 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 07.02.2025. Hand delivery of this order is permitted.” 4. As can be seen from the aforesaid interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioners in both the petitions were - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6989 WP No. 1829 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1171 of 2025 directed to be released on interim bail by holding that grounds of arrest had not been furnished to them as required in law and as held by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to in the said interim orders. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and a perusal of the material on record which will indicate that the Grounds of Arrest had not been furnished to the petitioners at the time of their arrest, I am of the view that the arrest of the petitioners and their consequent remand deserve to be quashed. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Both W.P.No.1829/2025 and W.P.No.1171/2025 are allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned Arrest memos dated 09/01/2025 and consequent remand orders qua petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 3 in O.R.No.68/2024-25 on the file of the XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions / Special Judge, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RB / SV