Allowed¶60

Praveen Singh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2025WP/1390/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grounds of arrest not furnished or communicated; Article 22(1) Constitution of India; illegal arrest; quashing of remand orders; Section 108 BNS abetment of suicide; Section 3(5) BNS common intention; Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana; Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India; Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi); interim bail with personal bond Rs.1,00,000/-; HAL Police Station Bengaluru; Crime No.14/2025; 29th ACMM Bangalore; FIR dated 13.01.2025; arrest at 10:45 p.m. without grounds; Karnataka High Court; Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar; WP No. 1390 of 2025; writ of certiorari; notice to respondent No.2 dispensed with.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned remand orders dated 14.01.2025 and 15.01.2025 (Annexure-A) in Crime No.14/2025 pending on the file of the XXIX ACJM, Bengaluru. ¶60

Praveen Singh Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the impugned remand orders dated 14.01.2025 and 15.01.2025 (Annexure-A) in Crime No.14/2025 pending on the file of the XXIX ACJM, Bengaluru.

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the arrest of the petitioner (accused No.1) on 13.01.2025 without communicating, furnishing or intimating the grounds of arrest was illegal, being contrary to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the principles laid down by the Apex Court. +1 more

¶50

Court's answer

The respondent No.1 - Police Authorities had illegally arrested the petitioner (accused No.1) without communicating, intimating or informing the grounds of arrest as mandatorily required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi).

¶50

Ratio / Principle

Since the Grounds of Arrest had not been furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest, the arrest of the petitioner and his consequent remand deserve to be quashed.

¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — Quashing of remand orders — Arrest without grounds of arrest — Petitioner, accused No.1 in Crime No.14/2025 (HAL Police Station) for offences punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of BNS (abetment of suicide), arrested on 13.01.2025 at 10:45 p.m. without communicating, furnishing or intimating the grounds of arrest — Held, the arrest was illegal, being contrary to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as mandatorily required, in light of the Apex Court judgments in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 0 Supreme (SC) 283), Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India ((2024) 7 SCC 576) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2024) 8 SCC 254) — Grounds of Arrest not furnished to the petitioner at the time of arrest — Impugned remand orders dated 14.01.2025 and 15.01.2025 (Annexure-A) passed by the 29th ACMM, Bangalore (XXIX ACJM, Bengaluru) quashed — Petition allowed. (By interim order dated 21.01.2025 the Court had earlier directed release of the petitioner on interim bail for three weeks, subject to conditions including a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties.)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:6988 WP No. 1390 of 2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1390 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRAVEEN SINGH S/O SATYA NARAYAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.305, SVS PARADISE 6^TH CROSS, ALPHA GARDEN, AYYAPPA NAGARA K R PURAM, BENGALURU - 36

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAL POLICE STATION BENGALURU DISTRICT REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 01

¶13

PADMAVATHI W/O SATHISH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.002, CSR MARVEL, MLA LAYOUT, KALENA AGRAHARA BENGALURU CITY - 01

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W V/O DATED 17.02.2025)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REMAND

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:6988 WP No. 1390 of 2025

¶19

ORDERS DATED 14/01/2025 AND 15/01/2025 VIDE ANNX-A IN CRIME NO. 14/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 29^TH ACMM, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 108, 3(5) OF BNS BY HAL POLICE (ANNX-A).

¶20

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

¶24

" Issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, quashing the impugned remand orders dated 14.01.2025 & 15.01.2025 vide Annexure-A in Crime No.14/2015 pending on the file of 29^th ACMM, Bangalore for the offences punishable u/s 108, 3(5) of BNS by HAL police (ANNEXURE-A)."

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶26

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 – complainant against the petitioner inter alia alleging that her daughter - Suhasi S. Singh had committed suicide and that the petitioner was guilty of abetment of suicide under Sections 108 and 3(5) of BNSS, the respondent No.1 – Police registered an FIR in Crime No.14/2025 against the petitioner on 13.01.2025 pursuant to which, the

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6988 WP No. 1390 of 2025

¶28

petitioner – accused No.1 was arrested on 13.01.2025 at 10:45 p.m. without communicating, furnishing or intimating the grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court in the present petition and an interim order dated 21.01.2025 was passed by this Court as hereunder:

¶29

"Counsel submission regarding office objections is accepted for the present.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP for the State and perused the material on record.

¶31

In this petition, petitioner (A1) seek quashing of the impugned remand orders dated 14.01.2025 and 15.01.2025 at Annexure-A in Crime No.14/2025 registered by the 1st respondent - police for the offences punishable under Section 108 r/w 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, pending on the file of 29th ACMM, Bangalore.

¶32

2. By way of an interim prayer, petitioner seeks directions to the 1st respondent -State to release him on interim bail and for other reliefs.

¶33

3. Apart from urging other contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the grounds of arrest of the petitioner had been explained to the petitioner at the time of arresting him. In this context, it is contended that the impugned arrest of the petitioner and the impugned orders of remand are contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254 , inasmuch as the reasons for arrest and the grounds of arrest had not been intimated, informed or communicated to the petitioner in writing, much less, explained to him in accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and consequently, the impugned arrest and the impugned remand orders deserve to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be released on interim bail immediately without any further delay.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:6988 WP No. 1390 of 2025

¶36

4. Per contra, learned Addl.SPP for the 1st respondent - State would oppose the submissions made by the petitioner and contended that he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for by him, especially since the petitioner had himself issued an acknowledgement that he had been fully appraised of the offences alleged against him at the time of his arrest when the intimation of grounds of arrest dated 13.01.2025 was issued to him and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

5. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in the alleged intimation of grounds of arrest and alleged acknowledgment dated 13.01.2025 said to have been issued by the petitioner, except the alleged LTMs of the petitioner which was obtained by the 1^st respondent by duress and coercion, the same were vague and bald and did not comply with the requisite requirements inasmuch as the grounds and reasons for arrest of the petitioner had neither been furnished nor communicated to the petitioner, thereby vitiating the impugned arrest and the impugned remand orders, which deserve to be quashed.

¶38

6. A perusal of the material on record, in particular the impugned arrest of the petitioner and the impugned remand orders would prima-facie indicate that the same are contrary to Articles 21, 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments coupled with the fact that the alleged intimation of grounds of arrest and alleged acknowledgment dated 13.01.2025 relied upon by the 1^st respondent prima - facie cannot be said to have been furnished and communicated to the petitioner as required in law and as such, by way of an interim arrangement and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the 1^st respondent to release the petitioner on interim bail for a period of three weeks from today, subject to the following conditions:

¶39

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

¶40

b) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:6988 WP No. 1390 of 2025

¶42

¶43

c) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of two weeks from today.

¶44

The 1^st respondent - State is directed to release the petitioner forthwith without any delay and immediately upon a receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

Issue emergent notice to respondent No.2.

¶46

List after service of notice.

¶47

Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents to seek vacation/modification of this order.

¶48

Hand delivery of this order is permitted."

¶49

As already noticed by this Court in the aforesaid

¶50

interim order, the respondent No.1 – Police Authorities had illegally arrested the petitioner – accused No.1 without communicating, intimating or informing the grounds of arrest as mandatorily required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the following judgments.

¶51

i. Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another - 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 283.

¶52

ii. Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India - (2024) 7 SCC 576.

¶53

iii. Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2024) 8 SCC 254.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:6988 WP No. 1390 of 2025

¶56

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

¶57

perusal of the material on record which indicates that the Grounds of Arrest had not been furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest, I am of the view that the arrest of the petitioner and his consequent remand deserve to be quashed.

¶58