Nagesha Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO 1. TO QUASH THE ARREST DATED 5-12024 AS ILLEGAL AND ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW, EFFECTED IN CRIME NO.279/2023 OF HULIYURUDURGA POLICE, TUMKURU DISTRICT WHICH IS PENDING IN S.C.NO.193/2024 ON THE FILE OF HNBLE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS FORTHWITH FROM JUDICIAL CUSTODY.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:17361 CRL.P No. 5632 of 2025

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5were arrested in relation to Crime No.279/2023 registered by the Huliyurdurga Police Station for the offences punishable 143, 147, 148, 120B, 114, 302 and 149 of IPC are before this Court seeking relief.

¶30

The petitioners were arrested on 5.1.2024/6.1.2024 and continued to be in judicial custody as of today.

¶31

Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners counsel submits that petitioners were not served with the grounds of arrest at the time of their arrest and therefore the same is in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & another, reported in 2025 INSC 162.

¶32

The learned High Court Government Pleader has placed on record the document in relation to the arrest of the petitioners herein. Perusal of the documents produced by the learned HCGP indicates that except serving the intimation of arrest, there is no document to substantiate that the grounds of arrest was served on the petitioners at the time of arrest.

¶33

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra), following its earlier decision, held that the requirement to inform a person of the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a mandatory constitutional obligation. Article 22, which is part of Part III of the Constitution of India under the

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:17361 CRL.P No. 5632 of 2025

¶36

fundamental rights, guarantees that every person arrested and detained in custody must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. Failure to do so would constitute aviolation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) and would effectively deprive the arrestee of his liberty, as no person may be deprived of liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law under Article 21.

¶37

In the instant case, it is admitted that the petitioners were not served with the grounds of arrest at the time of their arrest. Therefore, their arrest stands vitiated and is in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

¶38

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The Chief Superintendent of Prison, District Prison, Tumakuru is hereby directed to release the petitioners-accused No.3 and 5 forthwith from judicial custody in S.C.No.193/2024 (Arising out of Crime No.279/2023 registered by the Huliyurdurga Police station) on the file of the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, subject to the following conditions:

¶39

i. The petitioners-accused 3 and 5 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000 each with one local surety each, in a manner and for a bond sum satisfactory to the Trial Court within two weeks from the date of his release;

¶40

ii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with any prosecution witnesses;

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:17361 CRL.P No. 5632 of 2025

¶43

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required;

¶44

iv. The petitioner shall not engage in similar offences in the future;

¶45

v. The concerned Jail Authorities are hereby directed to release the petitioners forthwith without any delay, and immediately upon receipt of a copy of this order, provided they are not required for any other proceedings;

¶46

vi. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Jail Authorities immediately, both via e-mail and telephonically.

¶47

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶48

TIN

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT: BHK

Nagesha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagesha 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

Umamani K L Vs State of Karnataka

Basappa Rudrappa Dundanatti @ Basavraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashok Mahnot Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ashoka @ Hanumaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Malikarjun Y Babalennavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sathishgowda @ Siddarudha M J Vs the State of Karnataka