Manjunatha K @ Manjunathareddy Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:16562 WP No. 11445 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11445 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATHA K @ MANJUNATHAREDDY S/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT KITHAGANUR VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI K.R. PURAM POST BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560 036.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION AVALAHALLI, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 036 RERPESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

DEERAJ GOWDA S/O LATE K.V. JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT NO.38, KAMADENU NILAYA 3^RD CROSS, PADEMESWARI LAYOUT KITTAGANURU BANGALORE-560 036.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16562 WP No. 11445 of 2025

¶19

SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023 PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REMAND ORDERS DATED 08.04.2025 AND 09.04.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN CRIME NO.84/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJAPURAM, (ERSTWHILE IN THE COURT OF 1^ST ACJM, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE), FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 109, 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 352 AND 49 OF BNS, BY 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE DISTRICT, (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner, who was arrested in Crime No.84/2025 registered by the Avalahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under 109, 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2) is before this Court seeking relief.

¶24

The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said crime on 8.4.2025.

¶25

Petitioners' primary contention is that, the arrest stands vitiated for violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and also is in violation of Section 50 of BNS 2023, as no grounds of arrest was served on the petitioner at the time of arrest.

¶26

The learned High Court Government Pleader, for the respondent-State has placed on record the information of grounds of arrest to accused under Section 47(1) of BNSS,

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:16562 WP No. 11445 of 2025

¶29

which is alleged to have been served on the petitioner at the time of arrest.

¶30

Perusal of the same indicated that except mentioning the crime number no grounds are disclosed for arresting the petitioner. Therefore, it is implied that the grounds of arrest was not disclosed and served on the petitioner at the time of the arrest, and therefore, the same is in violation of Section 50 of BNS 2023 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

¶31

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar -vs- The state of Haryana & Anr. - in 2025 INSC 162, has reiterated that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of fundamental rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, if would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty, to effectively challenge the arrest. Article 21 of the Constitution states that no person can be deprived of his liberty, except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:16562 WP No. 11445 of 2025

¶34

In the instant case, admittedly no grounds of arrest was served on the petitioner and the same is in violation of Section 50 of BNS 2023 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner has established a prima facie case for his release from the judicial custody forthwith.

¶35

8 Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶36

The respondent No.1 and the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, is hereby directed to release the petitioner herein forthwith from judicial custody in Crime No.84/2025, registered by the Avalahalli Police Station on the file of the 1^st ACJM, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, if he is not required in any other case, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

i) The petitioner-accused No.11 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks from the date of his release;

¶38

ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶39

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶40

iv) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in the future;

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16562 WP No. 11445 of 2025

¶42

v) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits without prior permission of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶43

vi) The concerned Jail Authorities are hereby directed to release the petitioner forthwith without any delay and immediately upon a receipt of copy of this order if he is not required for any other cases, if any.

¶44

vii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Jail Authorities concerned forthwith without any delay through e-mail and telephonically.

¶45

Hand delivery ordered.

¶46

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶47

HR

¶48

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 159

Manjunatha K @ Manjunathareddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunatha K @ Manjunathareddy 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

Dr. S. Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkatesh R Vs the State of Karnataka

G Raghu Achar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sanjay M Vs Sri Vinay v

G H Halappa Vs State of Karnataka

Siddarudha.M.J @ Sathish Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka