Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Manu Kumar V vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 April, 2025

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                  -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC:17895
                                                             WP No. 12560 of 2025




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

                                               BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 12560 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    MANU KUMAR V
                            S/O. VEERAIAH
                            AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
                            RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR BEEDI,
                            2ND CROSS, KANNURU VILLAGE AND POST,
                            KOLLEGALA TALUK
                            CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 443.
                                                                     ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. R.K. MAHADEVA, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                            ALANAHALLY POLICE STATION,
                            DEVARAJA SUB-DIVISION
                            MYSURU DISTRICT-570 001.
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA
Location: High        2.    THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
Court of Karnataka          CENTRAL PRISON,
                            MYSURU,
                            MYSURU DISTRICT-570 002.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1)

                           THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
                      AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
                      SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SANHITA
                      PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REMAND ORDER DATED
                      23.03.2025 IN CRIME NO.23/2025 OF ALANAHALLY POLICE
                      STATION FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
                      SECTION 309(6), 329(4) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:17895
                                         WP No. 12560 of 2025




PASSED BY THE HON'BLE III JMFC COURT, MALALAVADI,
MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER/
ACCUSED NO. 3 ONLY AND CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE HIM
FORTHWITH FROM JUDICIAL CUSTODY WITH A DIRECTION TO
2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.

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

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                         ORAL ORDER

The petitioner who was arrest on 23.03.2025 in Crime No.23/2025 registered by the Alanahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 309(6), 329(4), of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is before this Court seeking relief.

2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the grounds of arrest were not served on the petitioner at the time of arrest and therefore the same stands vitiated for non- compliance of provision of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India and under sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. In support, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar -vs- State of Haryana & anr. - in 2025 INSC 162.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.

4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar -vs- State of Haryana & anr. - in 2025 INSC 162, following the earlier decision has held that the requirement of -3- NC: 2025:KHC:17895 WP No. 12560 of 2025 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. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

5. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the arrest of the petitioner is held to be illegal and without authority of law for non-compliance of provision of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India and under sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. The petitioner has established a prima facie case to release him from judicial custody.

6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The 3rd respondent, Superintendent of Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, is hereby directed to release the petitioner-accused No.3 forthwith in Crime No.23/2025, registered by the Alanahalli Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner-accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety -4- NC: 2025:KHC:17895 WP No. 12560 of 2025 for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of his release;
ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required;
iv) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;
v) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits without prior permission of the Investigating Officer.
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.
vii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Jail Authorities concerned forthwith without any delay through e-mail and telephonically.

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR