Sri Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19824 CRL.P No. 7158 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7158 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI BABU S/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT VIJAYLAKSHMI COLONY, 1^ST CROSS, BELATHURU, KADUGODI BENGALURU – 560 067.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AVINASH P, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAGGALIPURA POLICE REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT – 560 001.

¶12

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

¶13

RAJAMMA W/O RAMAIAHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT GULAKALAMALE VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU – 560 061.

¶14

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W VIDE C/O DT:10.06.2025)

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2024 AND REMAND APPLICATION DATED 11.03.2024 ON ARREST BY II ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE REMAND APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-B FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 34 OF THE IPC IN FIR CR.NO.70/2024 LATER

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19824 CRL.P No. 7158 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

INSERTED SECTION 120(B) IN THE CHARGE SHEET, HENCE, THIS PETITION.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following relief:-

¶24

“ Wherefore the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to Quash the order on dated: 11.03.2024 on arrest by II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru and the remand application dated: 11.03.2024 is produced at Annexure-A and the Remand application at Annexure-b. for the offence punishable under Section 302, 34 of the IPC IN FIR Cr. No. 70/2024 later inserted section 120(b) in the charge sheet, hence this petition in the interest of Justice .”

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶26

Addl. SPP for 1^st respondent and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to 2^nd respondent is dispensed with.

¶27

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the material on record in order to point out that the requisite grounds of arrest as

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19824 CRL.P No. 7158 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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 petitioner or to his 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 and the impugned remand of the petitioner to the judicial custody be quashed and concerned respondents be directed to release the petitioner on bail.

¶31

Per contra, learned Addl.SPP submits that at the time of arrest of the petitioner on 11.03.2024 at about 9.30 a.m., grounds of arrest were not furnished to the petitioner or to his relatives as required in law and necessary orders may be passed in the instant case.

¶32

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 petitioner and / or to his 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

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:19824 CRL.P No. 7158 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

be allowed and petitioner is entitled to be released on bail by imposing certain conditions.

¶37

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶40

(ii) The impugned arrest of the petitioner on 11.03.2024 in Crime No.70/2024 registered by the 1^st respondent - Police and consequential remand order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the II ACJM, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.

¶41

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

¶42

a) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the evidence, witnesses etc., of the respondents ;

¶43

b) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶44

c) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation;

¶45

d) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without the prior permission of the Court;

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19824 CRL.P No. 7158 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

e) The petitioner 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 the date of his release.

¶49

f) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the SHO of the jurisdictional police station between 10.00 a.m. and 02.00 p.m., once in two weeks. g) Liberty is reserved in favour of the Trial Court to take appropriate action against the petitioner including issuance of NBW against the petitioner, in the event he violates any of the terms and conditions mentioned above.

¶50

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

¶51

Hand delivery of this order is permitted.

¶52

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶53

Srl.

Sri Babu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Babu 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 Praveena G v Vs the State of Karnataka

C Srinivasulu, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Tejaswini Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahammad @ Mohammed Razak Mukkachary Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddappa v Kore Alias Siddarth Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Khaleeq Ur Rehman I S Vs State of Karnataka