- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31545-DB W.P. No.21493/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.21493/2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY BRANCH OFFICE 3RD FLOOR, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 008 REP. BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P, SPL. PP) AND: 1. MOHAMMED ARIF S/O MOHD. MUBARAK HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.4/2381, STREET NO.1 IQRA COLONY, ALIGARH UTTAR PRADESH-202001 (PRESENTLY LODGED AT CENTRAL PRISON BANGALORE UTP NO.1492/2023). 2. HAMRAZ WORSHID SHAIKH S/O WORSHID AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.770, BOISAR PALGHAR ROAD SHIVNAGAR, SARAVALI THANE MAHARASHTRA-421311 (PRESENTLY LODGED AT CENTRAL PRISON BANGALORE UTP NO.1493/2023) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MEHMOOD PRACHA, ADV., FOR R1 [ABSENT] R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31545-DB W.P. No.21493/2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC.482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER-DATED 04.08.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NIA CASES AT BENGALURU (CCH-50) IN RC No. 4/2023/NIA/DLI (REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER SEC. 43D(2) OF UAP ACT, SEEKING POLICE CUSTODY OF RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED Nos.1 AND 2 FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE DAYS AND REMAND THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2 TO POLICE CUSTODY OF THE PETITIONER/NIA FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE DAYS & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) No representation for the respondents. 2. During the course of hearing, Sri Prasanna Kumar.P, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that since already charges are framed and trial is going on, this petition has become infructuous. However, his only apprehension is that the trial Court may take the impugned order as precedent. 3. He further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State represented by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31545-DB W.P. No.21493/2023 Deputy Director and others1 held that maximum period of 15 days of police custody is meant to be applied to the entire period of 60-90 days as a whole and curtailment of 15 days of police custody by any extraneous circumstances, act of God and the order of the Court not being the handy work of the investigating agency could not act as restriction. 4. If such is the legal position, the said ratio binds until different view is taken by Larger Bench. It is open to the petitioner to rely on the said judgment if such circumstance arises. With these observations, the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 1 (2024) 3 SCC 51