Disposed¶38

National Investigation Agency v. Mohammed Arif

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2025WP/21493/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P. No.21493/2023 (GM-RES), High Court of Karnataka, decided 14-08-2025: NIA writ petition (Art.226/227 Constitution r/w Sec.482 CrPC) challenging Special Judge (NIA Cases), Bengaluru order dated 04.08.2023 in RC No. 4/2023/NIA/DLI rejecting Sec. 43D(2) UAP Act plea for five days' police custody of accused Nos.1 and 2 (Mohammed Arif; Hamraz Worshid Shaikh); petition disposed as infructuous because charges framed and trial ongoing; V. Senthil Balaji, (2024) 3 SCC 51 ratio noted as binding pending Larger Bench view.

What did the court decide?

Since charges have already been framed and trial is going on, the writ petition seeking quashment of the custody-rejection order and remand of the accused to NIA police custody has become infructuous. ¶32

National Investigation Agency Vs Mohammed Arif — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31545-DB W.P. No.21493/2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.21493/2023 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY BRANCH OFFICE

¶11

3RD FLOOR, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR

¶12

BENGALURU-560 008

¶13

REP. BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE …PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P, SPL. PP)

¶16

AND:

¶17

MOHAMMED ARIF S/O MOHD. MUBARAK HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.4/2381, STREET NO.1 IQRA COLONY, ALIGARH UTTAR PRADESH-202001 (PRESENTLY LODGED AT CENTRAL PRISON BANGALORE UTP NO.1492/2023).

¶18

HAMRAZ WORSHID SHAIKH S/O WORSHID AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.770, BOISAR PALGHAR ROAD SHIVNAGAR, SARAVALI THANE MAHARASHTRA-421311

¶19

(PRESENTLY LODGED AT CENTRAL PRISON

¶20

BANGALORE UTP NO.1493/2023) …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI MEHMOOD PRACHA, ADV., FOR R1 [ABSENT] R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31545-DB W.P. No.21493/2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC.482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER-DATED 04.08.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NIA CASES AT BENGALURU (CCH-50) IN RC No. 4/2023/NIA/DLI (REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER SEC. 43D(2) OF UAP ACT, SEEKING POLICE CUSTODY OF RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED Nos.1 AND 2 FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE DAYS AND REMAND THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2 TO POLICE CUSTODY OF THE PETITIONER/NIA FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE DAYS & ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶30

No representation for the respondents.

¶31

During the course of hearing, Sri Prasanna

¶32

Kumar.P, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that since already charges are framed and trial is going on, this petition has become infructuous. However, his only apprehension is that the trial Court may take the impugned order as precedent.

¶33

He further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶34

the case of V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State represented by the

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31545-DB W.P. No.21493/2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Deputy Director and others¹ held that maximum period of 15 days of police custody is meant to be applied to the entire period of 60-90 days as a whole and curtailment of 15 days of police custody by any extraneous circumstances, act of God and the order of the Court not being the handy work of the investigating agency could not act as restriction.

¶38

If such is the legal position, the said ratio binds until different view is taken by Larger Bench. It is open to the petitioner to rely on the said judgment if such circumstance arises. With these observations, the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.

¶39

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶40

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

¶43

1 (2024) 3 SCC 51

National Investigation Agency v. Mohammed Arif

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Investigation Agency v. Mohammed Arif

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

Mohammed Tousif Vs National Investigating Agency

Girisha Alias Girish Alias Giri Vs State of Karnataka

Pradeep Poojary Vs the State

Narasimhappa @ Narasimha Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Manju Alias Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Kathik Kumar