Shrikanth M Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ARREST OF PETITIONER 29.04.2024 IN CR.NO.137/2024 OF HALASURU P.S FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-22) IN S.C.NO.1054/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FROM JUDICIAL CUSTODY.

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:24319 CRL.P No. 8690 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , 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, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶28

“The above named Petitioner humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the arrest of Petitioner 29.04.2024 in Cr.No.137/2024 of Halasuru PS for offence punishable under section 302, 34 of IPC pending on the file of XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-22) in S.C.No.1054/2024 and consequently direct Respondent No.2 to release the petitioner from judicial custody in the interest of justice.”

¶29

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶30

HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶31

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Santhosh S.

¶32

Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.6721/2025

¶33

dated 09.06.2025 (arising out of S.C.No.1054/2024) , since the said

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24319 CRL.P No. 8690 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Santhosh S. is accused No.2 and the present petitioner is accused No.1 in the said S.C.No.1054/2024 pending before the Trial Court and by way of parity the present petition may be allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

¶37

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while petitioner is accused No.1 in S.C.No.1054/2024, this Court in relation to accused No.2-Santhosh S., allowed Crl.P.No.6721/2025 vide order dated 09.08.2025 and allowed the petition as under:

¶38

“In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶39

“(i) To quash the arrest and remand order dated 20.04.2024 passed by learned X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mayohall, Bangalore City in Crime No.137/2024 registered by the Halasuru Police Station, Bangalore City for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 302 r/w 34 of IPC (now pending on the file of learned XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CH-22) at Bengaluru City S.C.No.1054/2024) and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to release the petitioner from the prison forthwith in the ends of justice.

¶40

(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.”

¶41

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

¶42

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record,

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:24319 CRL.P No. 8690 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

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

¶47

4. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that at the time of arrest of the petitioner on 19.04.2024 at about 07.40 P.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.

¶48

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

¶49

6. In the result, I pass the following:-

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶52

5 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:24319 CRL.P No. 8690 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

(ii) The impugned arrest of the petitioner on 19.04.2024 in Crime No.137/2024 registered by the 1^st respondent - Police and consequential remand dated 20.04.2024 passed by the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore City, are hereby quashed.

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

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 today.

¶62

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.

¶63

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.

¶64

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

¶65

6 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:24319 CRL.P No. 8690 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

telephonically to enable immediate implementation of this order.

¶69

Hand delivery of this order is permitted.”

¶70

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

¶71

by applying Doctrine of Parity, the arrest of the petitioner-accused No.1 in S.C.No.1054/2024 deserves to be quashed in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of Santhosh S. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.6721/2025 dated

¶72

09.06.2025.

¶73

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

(i) Petition is hereby allowed and disposed of in terms of the

¶76

order passed in the case of Santhosh S. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.6721/2025 dated 09.06.2025.

¶77

(ii) The impugned arrest of the petitioner on 29.04.2024 in S.C.No.1054/2024 (Crime No.137/2024 registered by the 1^st respondent – Police), pending on the file of the XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.

¶78

(iii) The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on bail forthwith immediately upon receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the following conditions:

¶79

7 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:24319 CRL.P No. 8690 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

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

¶83

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

¶84

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

¶85

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

¶86

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 today.

¶87

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.

¶88

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.

¶89

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the 1^st respondent – Police as well as the 2^nd respondent – Jail Authorities forthwith, without any delay, both electronically and telephonically to enable immediate implementation of this order.

¶90

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶91

BMC: List No.: 3 Sl No.: 56

Shrikanth M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikanth M 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

Srinivas Hejamadi Tati Vs Well Doc Software Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Mohan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Abdul Rahiman Vs State by Buntwal Rural

Mrs. Franzy Gonsalves Vs Mr. Tabraiz Sheriff Shaikh

Mrs. Frenzy Gonsalves Vs Mr. Tabraiz Sheriff Shaikh

Sri.Pradeep M Vs the State of Karnataka