Karnataka High Court
Dinesh Shanmuganathan vs The Intelligence Officer on 10 April, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:20054
CRL.P No. 9177 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9177 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
DINESH SHANMUGANATHAN
S/O SHUNMUGALASAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.6/100,
INDIRA NAGAR, MELAPUTHANERI,
PARAIKKULAM, TIRUNALVELI,
TAMIL NADU - 627 351
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOKUL H.R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE,
Digitally BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT,
signed by R
MANJUNATHA RPT. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: NO.8(2)P, OPP. BDA COMPLEX HBR LAYOUT,
HIGH COURT
OF KALYAN NAGAR POST, BANASWADI
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 043.
OFFICE AT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MADHU N. RAO, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (U/S 483 OF BNSS)
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND GRANT REGULAR BAIL
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:20054
CRL.P No. 9177 of 2025
HC-KAR
U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C. IN CR.NO.F.NO.DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-
20/(INT-NIL)/2023 OF RESPONDENT POLICE, FOR OFFENCE
P/U/S. 8(c), R/W 21, 23, 28 AND 29 OF NDPS ACT, 1985,
WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XXXIII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS),
BANGALORE, IN SPL.CC.NO.2900/2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri. Gokul H.R., for learned counsel Sri. Nataraj D. appearing for the petitioner/accused No.4 and learned counsel Sri. Madhu N. Rao appearing for the respondent.
2. Petitioner is accused No. 4 - Dinesh Shanmuganathan in following number which is now pending in Special Case No. 2900/2023 on the file of Special Court for NDPS, Bangalore. -3-
NC: 2026:KHC:20054 CRL.P No. 9177 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. Petitioner is produced before the Special Court by issuing the body warrant or production and the transit warrant as is contemplated under Section 302 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as BNSS for short) which is corresponding to Section 267 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for short) from the custody of Special Court at Bikaner.
4. Admittedly, two more cases are pending on the file of the Special Judge, Vashi, Mumbai and Arnala Police Station, Mumbai, apart from the case pending at Jaipur.
5. Since the accused is not arrested in the case on hand, he cannot be enlarged on bail by exercising the power vested in this Court under Section 483 of BNSS. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, tried to impress upon the Court that petitioner is in deemed custody.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:20054 CRL.P No. 9177 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. In order to appreciate the said argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner, it is just and necessary for this Court to allow Section 483 of BNSS which is corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C. and also Section 302 BNSS which is corresponding to Section 267 Cr.P.C. Those provisions are culled out hereunder for ready reference:
Section 483. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct,-
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 480, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section;
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified:
Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice:-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:20054 CRL.P No. 9177 of 2025 HC-KAR Provided further that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence triable under section 65 or sub-section (2) of section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such application."
Section 302. Power to required attendance of prisoners (1) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or proceeding under this Sanhita, it appears to a Criminal Court, -
(a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him, or;
(b) that it is necessary for the ends of justice to examine such person as a witness.
the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court answering to the charge or for the purpose of such proceeding or for giving evidence. (2) Wherer an order under sub-section (1) is made by a Magistrate of the second class, it shall not be forwarded to, or acted upon by, the officer in charge of the prison unless it is countersigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, to whom such Magistrate is subordinate.
(3) Every order submitted for countersigning under sub-section (2) shall be accompanied by a statement of the facts which, in the opinion of the Magistrate, render the order necessary, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom it is submitted may, after considering such statement, decline to countersign the order."
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:20054 CRL.P No. 9177 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. On close reading of the language employed in both the provisions, a person who is produced before the Court by exercising the power under Section 302 of BNSS for the attendance to answer charge or for trial of the under trial prisoner or convict on the file of some other Court cannot be treated as a person in custody so as to exercise the power under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge him on bail.
8. Further, petitioner was also required to mention the criminal antecedents and number of cases pending against him in the bail petition.
9. But petitioner has failed to mention the same and reason for suppression is obvious that if mentioned about the antecedents and the arrest of the petitioner in the case which is now pending before the special Court, at Bikaner Rajasthan State, hardly there would be any scope for the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail, that too when the seized NDPS is a commercial quantity. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC:20054 CRL.P No. 9177 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. Objections of the respondent is well-founded with material details. Since the petitioner is a habitual and known criminal involved in other cases, the power vested in this Court under Section 483 of BNSS cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner on the aforesaid grounds.
11. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER Bail petition is rejected .
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2