Mubarak @ Mubbu @ Thofik Noree Vs State of Karnataka

IBRAHIM KHALEEL @ KHALEEL @ SANNA KHALEEL S/O MAHABOOB PEER AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESIDING AT BOMMANAKATTE 1^ST CROSS BAVI NEAR HOUSE BHADRAVATHI TOWN-577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶14

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUHAIB FAZEEL M., ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:11983 CRL.P No. 3346 of 2025

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BHADRAVATHI OLD TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. JAGADISH, ADDL. SPP A/W SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R1)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE REMAND DATED 21.12.2023 SUBMITTED IN CR.NO.198/2023 (S.C.NO.5032/2024) BEFORE THE LEARNED 2^ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC FILED BY OLD TOWN POLICE, BHADRAVATHI.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 3, who are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506, and 149 of the IPC, are before this Court seeking relief.

¶26

The case was registered as Crime No. 198/2023 for the aforesaid offences. The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 3, were apprehended and remanded to judicial custody on 20.12.2023. The petitions filed by the petitioners seeking bail have been rejected.

¶27

The petitioners contend that the grounds for their arrest were not disclosed or served on them at the time of arrest, which violates

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:11983 CRL.P No. 3346 of 2025

¶30

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Manoj Parihar & ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & ors. [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560].

¶31

The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1 submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to release, even though the grounds were not disclosed or served on them at the time of arrest, because the petitions for bail have already been dismissed. It was further submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576] is prospective in its effect and cannot be applied to the present case.

¶32

The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

¶33

The petitioners were arrested on 20.12.2023 without the grounds for their arrest being disclosed to them. In Ram Kishor Arora vs. Directorate of Enforcement [(2024) 7 SCC 599], the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled that the requirement to convey the reasons for the grounds of arrest in writing, as laid down in the Pankaj Bansal case, shall have a prospective effect, operating from the date of the pronouncement of that judgment. The judgment further noted the inconsistent practices followed by officers arresting persons under Section 19 of the PMLA, and directed that, henceforth, the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing as a matter of course from the date of the pronouncement of the said judgment.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:11983 CRL.P No. 3346 of 2025

¶36

In Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana [2925 SCC OnLine (SC) 269], the Hon’ble Apex Court noted the argument by the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent—that after arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody and that a charge sheet has now been filed, thereby justifying continued custody— would effectively nullify Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court observed that once an arrest is deemed unconstitutional due to a violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Consequently, the continued custody of a person based on remand orders is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet or an order of cognizance does not validate an arrest that is inherently unconstitutional under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court further emphasized that the safeguards provided under Article 22 cannot be compromised.

¶37

In the present case, the arrest of the petitioners occurred after the decision in Ram Kishor Arora was rendered. Therefore, the decision in Pankaj Bansal is fully applicable to the facts of this case. The arrest of the petitioners, which is in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is vitiated by the failure to disclose the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest.

¶38

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The remand order dated 21.12.2023, submitted in Crime No. 198/2023 (SC No.5032)24, pending before the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, is hereby quashed.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11983 CRL.P No. 3346 of 2025

¶40

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 3, are to be released forthwith from the judicial custody of the concerned Jail Authority in Crime No. 198/2023 (SC No.5032)24, pending before the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, for the offences under Sections 302, 504, 506, and 149 of the IPC registered by the Old Town Police, Bhadravathi, subject to the following conditions:

¶41

(a) The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, along with one surety each, for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶42

(b) They shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶43

(c) They shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶44

(d) They shall not become involved in similar offences.

¶45

(e) They shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court without the prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶46

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶47

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75

Mubarak @ Mubbu @ Thofik Noree v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubarak @ Mubbu @ Thofik Noree 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

Santhosh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Tippeswamy Vs State by

Can Fin Homes Limited Vs Inspector of Police and Station House Officer

Venkateshalu K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Yogendra Mahara Vs State of Karnataka

Venkateshalu K Vs the State of Karnataka