- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6988 WP No. 1390 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.1390 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: PRAVEEN SINGH S/O SATYA NARAYAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.305, SVS PARADISE 6TH CROSS, ALPHA GARDEN, AYYAPPA NAGARA K R PURAM, BENGALURU - 36 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAL POLICE STATION BENGALURU DISTRICT REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 01 2. PADMAVATHI W/O SATHISH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.002, CSR MARVEL, MLA LAYOUT, KALENA AGRAHARA BENGALURU CITY - 01 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W V/O DATED 17.02.2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REMAND Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6988 WP No. 1390 of 2025 ORDERS DATED 14/01/2025 AND 15/01/2025 VIDE ANNX-A IN CRIME NO. 14/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 29TH ACMM, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 108, 3(5) OF BNS BY HAL POLICE (ANNX-A). 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, the petitioner seeks the following relief: "Issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, quashing the impugned remand orders dated 14.01.2025 & 15.01.2025 vide Annexure-A in Crime No.14/2015 pending on the file of 29th ACMM, Bangalore for the offences punishable u/s 108, 3(5) of BNS by HAL police (ANNEXURE-A)." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 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 against the petitioner inter alia alleging that her daughter - Suhasi S. Singh had committed suicide and that the petitioner was guilty of abetment of suicide under Sections 108 and 3(5) of BNSS, the respondent No.1 – Police registered an FIR in Crime No.14/2025 against the petitioner on 13.01.2025 pursuant to which, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6988 WP No. 1390 of 2025 petitioner – accused No.1 was arrested on 13.01.2025 at 10:45 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 21.01.2025 was passed by this Court as hereunder: "Counsel submission regarding office objections is accepted for the present. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP for the State and perused the material on record. In this petition, petitioner (A1) seek quashing of the impugned remand orders dated 14.01.2025 and 15.01.2025 at Annexure-A in Crime No.14/2025 registered by the 1st respondent - police for the offences punishable under Section 108 r/w 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, pending on the file of 29th ACMM, Bangalore. 2. By way of an interim prayer, petitioner seeks directions to the 1st respondent -State to release him on interim bail and for other reliefs. 3. Apart from urging other contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the grounds of arrest of the petitioner had been explained to the petitioner at the time of arresting him. In this context, it is contended that 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 him in accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and consequently, the impugned arrest and the impugned remand orders deserve to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be released on interim bail immediately without any further delay. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6988 WP No. 1390 of 2025 4. Per contra, learned Addl.SPP for the 1st respondent - State would oppose the submissions made by the petitioner and contended that he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for by him, especially since the petitioner had himself issued an acknowledgement that he had been fully appraised of the offences alleged against him at the time of his arrest when the intimation of grounds of arrest dated 13.01.2025 was issued to him and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in the alleged intimation of grounds of arrest and alleged acknowledgment dated 13.01.2025 said to have been issued by the petitioner, except the alleged LTMs of the petitioner which was obtained by the 1st respondent by duress and coercion, the same were vague and bald and did not comply with the requisite requirements inasmuch as the grounds and reasons for arrest of the petitioner had neither been furnished nor communicated to the petitioner, thereby vitiating the impugned arrest and the impugned remand orders, which deserve to be quashed. 6. 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 alleged intimation of grounds of arrest and alleged acknowledgment dated 13.01.2025 relied upon by the 1st respondent prima - facie cannot be said to have been furnished and 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, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the 1st respondent 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6988 WP No. 1390 of 2025 c) Petitioner 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 two weeks from today. 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. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.2. List after service of notice. Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents to seek vacation/modification of this order. 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 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. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6988 WP No. 1390 of 2025 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 14.01.2025 and 15.01.2025 vide Annexure-A in Crime No.14/2025 pending on the file of the XXIX ACJM, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RB / SV