Smt.Tejaswini Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. GAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.23, C/O SOUBHAGYAMMA HOUSE, 3^RD MAIN, NEW THIPPASANDRA, INDIRA NAGARA, BANGALORE CITY – 560 066

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. NISHANTH S.K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH WHITEFIELD P.S.,

¶15

REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶16

RAMESH S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.9, KEMPEGOWDA RENTAL HOUSE, OPP. ANGANAWADI SCHOOL NEAR MANJUNATHASWAMY TEMPLE, IMMADIHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE CITY– 560 066.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:19481 CRL.P No. 6694 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BANGALORE – 560 068

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 & R3)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ARREST AND REMAND ORDER DATED 10.08.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED C/C ADDL. C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CR.NO.545/2024 REGISTERED BY THE WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103(1) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SAMHITHA, 2023 (NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN S.C.NO.316/2024).

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶28

“(i) To quash the arrest and remand order dated 10.08.2024 passed by the Learned C/C Addl. C.J.M Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru in Crime No.545/2024 registered by the Whitefield Police Station for the offences punishable Under Section 103(1) of Bharathiya Nyaya Samhitha 2023 (now pending on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru Rural District in SC No. 316/2024).

¶29

(ii) To grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice.”

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:19481 CRL.P No. 6694 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. SPP for respondents and perused the material on record.

¶34

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the material on record in order to point out that the requisite grounds of arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS, 2023 have not been issued either to the petitioners or to their relatives and in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India – (2024) 7 SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana – 2025 INSC 162, remand of the petitioners to the judicial custody be quashed and concerned respondents be directed to release the petitioners on bail.

¶35

Per contra, learned HCGP submits that at the time of arrest of the petitioner No.1 on 10.08.2024 at about 11.00 A.M. and petitioner No.2 on 10.08.2024 at about 01.00 P.M., grounds of arrest were not furnished to the petitioners or to their relatives as

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19481 CRL.P No. 6694 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

required in law and necessary orders may be passed in the instant case.

¶39

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the instant case, grounds of arrest have not been furnished or communicated to the petitioners and / or to their relatives, friends etc., as required in law and in the light of the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed and petitioners are entitled to be released on bail by imposing certain conditions.

¶40

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶43

(ii) The impugned arrest of the petitioners on 10.08.2024 in Crime No.545/2024 registered by the 1^st respondent – Police and consequential remand dated 10.08.2024 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, are hereby quashed.

¶44

(iii) The 1^st respondent as well as the 3^rd respondent – Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioners on bail forthwith immediately upon receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the following conditions:

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:19481 CRL.P No. 6694 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

a) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the evidence, witnesses etc., of the respondents ; b) The petitioners shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶49

c) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation; d) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without the prior permission of the Court;

¶50

e) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today.

¶51

f) The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the SHO of the jurisdictional police station between 10.00 a.m. and 02.00 p.m., once in two weeks.

¶52

g) Liberty is reserved in favour of the Trial Court to take appropriate action against the petitioners including issuance of NBW against the petitioners, in the event they violates any of the terms and conditions mentioned above.

¶53

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the 1^st respondent as well as the 3^rd respondent – Jail Authorities forthwith without any delay both electronically and telephonically to enable immediate implementation of this order.

¶54

Hand delivery of this order is permitted.

¶55

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶56

SV List No.: 4 Sl No.: 3

Smt.Tejaswini v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Tejaswini v. the 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

Sri Khana Sharma @ Khana Pandeeth Vs the State of Karnataka

Axis Bank Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Praveena G v Vs the State of Karnataka

C Srinivasulu, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sowbhagya Vs State of Karnataka