Sri Mehboob Khan @ Naseem Ulla Khan Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. MEHBOOB KHAN @ NASEEM ULLA KHAN SON OF SRIL SABAJI KHAN @ INAYATH KHAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT BYLANARASAPURA VILLAGE NANDAGODI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU - 562 122

¶11

IN AADHAAR CARD - NASEEM ULLA KHAN S/O INAYATH KHAN NO.75, HOSKOTE TALUK BYLANARASAPURA, BANGALORE - 562 122.

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. SAIFULLA KHAN S/O SABAJI KHAN @ INAYATULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT BYLANARASAPURA VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 122

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. TOMY SEBASTIAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. RENY SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NANDAGODI POLICE STATION HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.7057/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT HOSKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REGISTERED IN NANDAGUDI P.S IN CR.NO.145/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 103, 126(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) AND 351(3), 61(2), 45 OF BNS ACT IN CRL.MISC.NO.1138/2025.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.145/2024 of Nandagudi Police Station, Bangalore Rural District registered for offences punishable under Sections 103, 126(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 351 (3), 61(2), 45 of BNS, 2023 are before this Court in this successive bail petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

FIR in Crime No.145/2024 was registered by Nandagudi Police Station, Bengaluru, initially for offences punishable under Sections 103, 126(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 351 (3) of BNS, 2023 against Mahaboob Khan and six others, based on the first information report dated 08.07.2024 submitted by Afreed Khan, son of deceased Afak Khan.

¶33

Petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3 in the FIR. During the course of investigation,

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

accused No.1 was arrested on 09.07.2024 and accused

¶38

No.3 was arrested on 19.09.2024. After completing investigation charge sheet has been filed against 7 persons and petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3 in the charge sheet. Their bail application was rejected by the Jurisdictional Sessions Court and therefore accused No.1 had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.3483/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.03.2025 with liberty to file a fresh petition. Thereafter, accused No.1 had filed a fresh petition in Criminal Petition No.4649/2025 claiming regular bail on medical grounds and the said petition was dismissed by this Court on 12.06.2025. The accused No.1 is therefore before this Court in this successive petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶39

Accused No.3 had earlier approached this Court in

¶40

Criminal Petition No.1688/2025 which was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2025. Under

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the circumstances, he is before this Court in this successive bail petition.

¶44

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that grounds of arrest was not served on the petitioners herein immediately after their arrest and therefore in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha -vs- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, Vihaan Kumar -vs- State of Haryana and another reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799 and also in the case of Pankaj Bansal -vs- Union of India reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 , the petitioners herein are entitled for bail as their custody becomes illegal. He submits that though the petitioners are before this Court in this successive bail application, since the aforesaid ground was not urged in the earlier bail petitions, there is no bar to entertain this petition. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya

¶45

in Robinus Ripnar -vs- State of Meghalaya and Anr in

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

BA No.38/2025 disposed of on 26.08.2025. He further

¶50

submits that even if the earlier bail application has been rejected, the Court can entertain a successive bail application on a ground which was not urged in the earlier bail application and in support, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Majeed -vs- State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.10830/2022 disposed of on 16.01.2023.

¶51

Per contra , learned HCGP for the Respondents submits that successive bail application can be entertained by the Court only if there is any change in circumstance,

¶52

after the earlier bail application was rejected. No such change in circumstance has been pointed out by petitioners in the present case. The ground now urged before this Court was very much available to the petitioners when they had earlier approached this Court. Therefore, she prays to dismiss this petition.

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

It is not in dispute that petitioners are before this Court by filing successive bail petitions. It is trite that successive bail petitions can be entertained only if there is any change in circumstance, after the earlier bail petition was rejected.

¶57

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) Prabir Purkayastha -vs- State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) in paragraph no.21 has observed as follows:-

¶58

"21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused".

¶59

(ii) In Vihaan Kumar -vs- State of Haryana and

¶60

another (supra) in paragraph no. 26, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:-

¶61

8 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

"Conclusions

¶65

26. Therefore, we conclude:

¶66

26.1. The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1);

¶67

26.2. The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved;

¶68

26.3. When arrested accused alleges noncompliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the investigating officer/agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1);

¶69

26.4. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of

¶70

9 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge-sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge-sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1);

¶74

26.5. When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and

¶75

26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established".

¶76

(iii) In Pankaj Bansal-vs- Union of India (supra) in paragraph No.38, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-

¶77

10 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

"38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. This being the fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be noted that Section 45 PMLA enables the person arrested under Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that unless the twin conditions prescribed thereunder are satisfied, such a person would not be entitled to grant of bail. The twin conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the court must be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is not guilty of the offence and, secondly, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. To meet this requirement, it would be essential for the arrested person to be aware of the grounds on which the authorised officer arrested him/her under Section 19 and the basis for the officer's “reason to believe” that he/she is guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act. It is only if the arrested person has knowledge of these facts that he/she would be in a position to plead and prove

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

before the Special Court that there are grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail. Therefore, communication of the grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 PMLA, is meant to serve this higher purpose and must be given due importance."

¶85

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha -vsState (NCT of Delhi) (supra) , Vihaan Kumar -vsState of Haryana and another (supra) and also Pankaj

¶86

Bansal -vs- Union of India(supra) in support of his arguments that grounds of arrest was not served on the petitioners immediately, after their arrest and therefore their arrest becomes illegal and they are entitled for bail as a matter of right. The aforesaid ground was very much available to the petitioners when their earlier bail petitions were rejected by this Court and therefore it cannot be said that there is any change in circumstance which would

¶87

12 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

entitle the petitioners to maintain this successive bail petition, after their earlier bail petitions were rejected.

¶91

Unless the petitioners are able to point out to this Court that after their earlier bail petitions were rejected there is some change in circumstance, which is material, their successive bail petitions cannot be entertained by this Court. In the case of Robinus Ripnar(supra) the accused who had approached the trial Court four times, had thereafter approached the High Court of Meghalaya and placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha(supra) the Meghalaya High Court had allowed his bail petition by taking into consideration that the grounds of arrest was not served on the accused/petitioners in the said case. It is relevant to note here that insofar as the petitioner in the said case is concerned he had approached the High Court for the first time and therefore it cannot be said that it was a successive bail petition.

¶92

13 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

In the case of State of M.P -VS- Kajad reported

¶96

in (2011) 7 SCC 678 , at paragraph no.8 of the

¶97

judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

¶98

"8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5-6-2000 has not been denied by the respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments".

¶99

13. In Ashok Pundalik Gavade vs. State of

¶100

Maharashtra reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 155,

¶101

while considering successive bail petition the High Court of Bombay, in paragraph Nos.11 to 13, has observed as follows:-

¶102

14 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

"11. It is thus well settled principle of law that successive bail application can be entertained only when there is substantive change in fact situation or circumstances during the period between the two applications. The embargo on filing repeated bail applications on the same facts is to ensure some degree of finality to the order passed and to maintain judicial discipline and propriety.

¶106

12. The present application is not filed on the ground of change in circumstance but bail is sought on grounds, which were already available at the time of filing of the previous bail application. Such application would not be maintainable as it would virtually amount to review of the previous order.

¶107

13. It has to be borne in mind that when the Court decides the bail application, it is deemed to have gone through the records and considered all the relevant aspects of the case. Furthermore, the Court deciding the bail application is not required to give elaborate reasons. The only requirement is that the order should be reasoned order. Hence, the mere fact that some of the grounds which were available were not raised in the previous application or that the said grounds are not reflected in the previous order would not justify entertaining subsequent bail application. Suffice it to say that entertaining

¶108

15 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

repeated prayers for bail on grounds which were already available or allowing another counsel to advance fresh arguments on the same facts would be against judicial discipline and propriety and will encourage abuse of process of law. Hence, we are not inclined to re-consider the merits of the matter."

¶112

In the case of Abdul Majeed (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that Courts while entertaining any subsequent bail application has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which earlier bail applications were rejected and in such cases, the Court also has a duty to record the fresh ground which persuade it to take a different view from the one taken in the earlier applications. In the said case, the question of maintaining a successive bail application in the absence of a change in circumstances, has not been considered and therefore the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this successive bail petition filed by the accused Nos.1 and 3 cannot be entertained.

¶113

16 -

¶114

NC: 2025:KHC:47726 CRL.P No. 9916 of 2025

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

At this stage learned Senior counsel for the

¶117

petitioner submits that the medical report of accused No.1 was called for and at this stage he will not be pressing this petition on medical grounds and he intends to file a fresh

¶118

petition on medical grounds in case need arises. Said submission is placed on record.

¶119

The medical ground urged in this petition on behalf of accused No.1 is left open to be considered in the event if he approaches this Court afresh seeking bail on medical grounds.

¶120

Accordingly, I pass the following:-

¶121

ORDER

¶122

Criminal Petition is dismissed .

¶123

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶124

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri Mehboob Khan @ Naseem Ulla Khan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mehboob Khan @ Naseem Ulla Khan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N Mani Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Skyline Construction and Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Chawla Interbild Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Radha Vs Muniyamma

M/S Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Timbers Vs M/S Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana

Sri T Venkataramanappa Vs Sri Shivappa

Sri. Y M Yathish Vs Smt. Renukamma