Shyamal Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY: THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, INDIRANAGAR PS REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶16

SANTHOSHKUMAR AGED MAJOR, OFFICER, BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED. RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 55, DIVYASHREE TOWERS, BANNERGHATTA, BANGALORE- 560 029

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDL SPP FOR R1)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:39574 CRL.P No. 13210 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE FOLLOWING IMPUGNED DIRECTION - NOTWITHSTANDING THIS ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL THE I.O IS AT LIBERTY TO TAKE THE PETITIONER INTO THEIR CUSTODY WITH PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE CONCERNED MAGISTRATE, IF THE PETITIONER IS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED FOR CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION AND CONSEQUENTIAL RECOVERY, IN ANY IN THE ORDER DTD 16.06.2025 OF THE LEARNED LXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69) IN CRL.MISC.NO.3551/2025, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard both sides and perused the impugned order.

¶26

The learned Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner has reserved liberty to the I.O. to take the petitioner into their custody with prior permission of the concerned Magistrate, if the petitioner is absolutely required for custodial interrogation and consequential recovery, if any.

¶27

Petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in FIR.No.60/2025 registered at Indiranagar Police Station,

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:39574 CRL.P No. 13210 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section

¶32

314, 316(2), 318(2), 318(4) of the BNS, 2023.

¶33

The learned Sessions Judge having held that

¶34

the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, was not justified in reserving liberty to the Investigating Officer to take the petitioner into custody for custodial interrogation.

¶35

It is relevant to refer to paragraph No.69 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ' TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH V/S. KAMAL DAYANI¹ ' extracted

¶36

hereunder:-

¶37

" Thus, the power to grant anticipatory bail is not to be exercised in a routine manner and the Courts are expected to use this provision with a great degree of circumspection. Once, a Court bearing in mind the strict parameters applicable to grant of anticipatory bail exercises such power, then in such a situation, giving a handle to the Investigating Officer to seek police custody remand of the accused, would virtually negate and frustrate the very

¶38

1 (2025) 1 SCC 753

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:39574 CRL.P No. 13210 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

purpose behind the order of anticipatory bail. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the practice prevalent in the State of Gujarat that the Courts while dealing with the anticipatory bail application routinely impose the restrictive condition whereby, the Investigating Officers are granted blanket permission to seek police custody remand of the accused, in whose favour the order of anticipatory bail is passed, is in direct contravention to the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Sushila Agarwal² . The Division Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari³ does not hold good in law as the same runs contrary to the ratio of Sushila Agarwal(supra) and thus, the same stands impliedly overruled."

¶43

The learned Sessions Judge has imposed several conditions while extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to petitioner. The impugned

¶44

2 Sushila Aggrwa V/s. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1: (2020) SCC (Cri) 721

¶45

3 Sunilbhai Sundhirbhai Kothari V/s. State of Gujarat, 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 16054

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:39574 CRL.P No. 13210 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

condition/observation would virtually negate and frustrate

¶50

the very purpose behind the order of anticipatory bail.

¶51

Hence, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) Petition is allowed .

¶54

ii) The operation of the impugned direction, in Crl.Misc.No.3551/2025 dated 16.06.2025 passed by the Court of LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is hereby set aside.

¶55

iii) All other conditions imposed by the learned

¶56

Sessions Judge at Nos.1 to 8 shall be intact and complied by the petitioner.

¶57

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶58

LDC

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Shyamal Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamal Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi @ Hadadi Ravi Vs State by Vidyanagar Police Station

K a Santhosh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Sanjay @ Sanjay Karkera Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Shakeera, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Vishwanath Vs Smt. Mangala

Ayishathul Powmya Sampaje Ebrahim Vs State of Karnataka