Sri Pavan Kumar M Vs State by Halasuru Police Station.

SRI PAVAN KUMAR M S/O MURAGHAN.M, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O NO. 45/4, NEAR MUTTALAMMA TEMPLE, DUPANAHALLI, 100 FT ROAD, II STAGE, INDRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560038.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SUDHARSHAN L., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

STATE BY HALASURU POLICE STATION., REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-560001

¶17

SRI. DINESH KUMAR.M, S/O MURALI KUMAR.S, R/O NO.17, SLAUGHTER HOUSE, C. STREET BROADWAY ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU CITY-560051

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:26123 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560068

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI NAGESHWARAPPA K. HCGP FOR R1)

¶24

CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ARREST DATED 19.04.2024 AND REMAND ORDER DATED 20.04.2024 ON THE FILE OF X ACMM COURT, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU CITY IN CRIME NO.137/2024 REGISTERED BY HALASURU POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 34 OF IPC AND NOW PENDING IN S.C.NO.1054/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CITY AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND NOW IN-CHARGE COURT AT XIII ACC AND SJ (CCH-22) FOR THE OFFENCES P/US 120(B), 201, 34 OF IPC AND DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FROM PRISON.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition, petitioner seek quashing of the proceedings in S.C.No.1054/2024 arising out of Crime No.137/2024 registered by the 1^st respondent – police, pending on the file of the Principal City

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:26123 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, and now in-charge Court at XIII ACC and SJ (CCH-22) for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 302, 34 of IPC.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶34

HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶35

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner viz., Pavan Kumar was arraigned as accused No. 3 in S.C.No.1054/2024 along with accused No.1 and 2, pursuant to FIR in Crime No.137/0024. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are under Sections 120(B), 201, 302, 34 of IPC of IPC.

¶36

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged

¶37

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 Shrikanth. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.8690/2025 dated 04.07.2025, since the said Shrikanth M. is accused No.1, and also the decision of this Court in the case of Santhosh S. Vs. The State

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26123 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

of Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.6721/2025 dated 09.06.2025

¶41

(arising out of S.C.No.1054/2024) , since the said Santhosh S. is accused No.2 and the present petitioner who is accused No.3 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.

¶42

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while petitioner is accused No.3 in S.C.No.1054/2024, this Court in relation to accused No.1-Shrikanth M.,in Crl.P.No.8690/2025, and accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.6721/2025 vide order dated 04.07.2025 and 09.06.2025 respectively, allowed the petitions as under:

¶43

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶44

“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.”

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:26123 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

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

¶49

3. 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. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.6721/2025 dated 09.06.2025 (arising out of S.C.No.1054/2024) , since the said 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.

¶50

4. 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.2Santhosh S., allowed Crl.P.No.6721/2025 vide order dated 09.06.2025 and allowed the petition as under:

¶51

“In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶52

“(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.

¶53

(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.”

¶54

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

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:26123 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

3. 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 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.

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

ORDER

¶63

7 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:26123 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶67

(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.

¶68

(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:

¶69

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

¶70

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

¶71

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

¶72

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

¶73

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.

¶74

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.

¶75

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.

¶76

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

¶77

8 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:26123 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

telephonically to enable immediate implementation of this order.

¶81

Hand delivery of this order is permitted.”

¶82

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and 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 09.06.2025.

¶83

6. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER

¶84

(i) Petition is hereby allowed and disposed of in terms of the order passed in the case of Santhosh S. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.6721/2025 dated 09.06.2025.

¶85

(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.

¶86

(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:

¶87

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

¶88

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

¶89

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

¶90

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

¶91

e) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of

¶92

9 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:26123 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

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.

¶96

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.

¶97

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.

¶98

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 .

¶99

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

¶100

by applying Doctrine of Parity, the arrest of the petitioner-accused No.3 in S.C.No.1054/2024 deserves to be quashed in terms of the

¶101

order passed by this Court in the case aforementioned petitions.

¶102

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶103

ORDER

¶104

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

¶105

order passed in the case of Santhosh S. Vs. The State of

¶106

10 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:26123 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2025

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.6721/2025 dated 09.06.2025 and Shrikantha.M. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.8690/2025 dated 04.07.2025

¶110

(ii) The impugned arrest of the petitioner on 19.04.2024 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.

¶111

(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:

¶112

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

¶113

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

¶114

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

¶115

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

¶116

l) 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.

¶117

m) 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.

¶118

11 -

¶119

NC: 2025:KHC:26123 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2025

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

n) 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.

¶122

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

¶123

to enable immediate implementation of this order.

¶124

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶125

HR

Sri Pavan Kumar M v. State by Halasuru Police Station.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pavan Kumar M v. State by Halasuru Police Station.

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

Smt. Bharathamma R (A1) Vs the State of Karnataka

Leelavathi J Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Venugopal B v, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hameed, Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Shaikh Yunus Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.P. Vijayalakshmi Vs State by Kodigehalli Police Station