Sri B M Mallikarjuna @ Fighter Ravi vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 5995 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri B M Mallikarjuna @ Fighter Ravi vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                                  -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:19888
                                                         CRL.P No. 1025 of 2025


                 HC-KAR



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                     CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1025 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
                BETWEEN:

                1.     SRI B. M. MALLIKARJUNA @ FIGHTER RAVI,
                       S/O MALLAIAH,
                       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
                       OFF/AT 13TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
                       SADASHIVANAGAR,
                       BENGALURU - 80

                2.     SRI. BRIJESH KUMAR,
                       S/O O. M. PRAKASH,
                       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
                       R/AT NO.375, 13TH CROSS,
                       9TH MAIN, VAYALIKAVAL,
                       BENGALURU - 03
                                                                  ...PETITIONERS
                (BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

                AND:
Digitally
signed by
CHANDANA        1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BM
                       THROUGH SADASHIVANAGR PS,
Location:
High Court of          REPRESENTED BY SPP,
Karnataka              HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
                       BENGALURU - 560 001.

                2.     SRI. SOMASHEKAR YUVA
                       S/O MURTHY,
                       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                       R/AT NO.1431, 17TH CROSS,
                       18TH MAIN, 4TH PHASE, JP NAGAR,
                       BENGALURU - 560 078
                                                                ...RESPONDENTS
                (BY SRI. NAGESHWARAPPA K., ADV. FOR R1;
                    SRI. RANGANATHA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
                                   -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:19888
                                            CRL.P No. 1025 of 2025


HC-KAR




      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2025
PASSED BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE REMANDING THE
PETITIONERS ALONG WITH             FIR AND COMPLAINT IN
CR.NO.011/2025 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 P.S., ON
THE FILE OF LEARNED I ADDL. CMM COURT, BENGLAURU FOR
THE OFFENCES ALLEGED U/S 109, 118(1), 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 AND
SEC. 30 OF ARMS ACT, 1959.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR


                           ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

a) Call for records; Allow this Criminal petition and quash the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate remanding the petitioners along with FIR and complaint in Crime No.11/2025 registered by Respondent No.1 Police Station on the file of learned I Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru for the offences alleged punishable under Section 109, 118(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 30 of Arms Act, 1959, in the interest of justice and equity.

b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

NC: 2025:KHC:19888

HC-KAR

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. Petitioner has also sought for reliefs by way of interim

bail, which was granted vide order dated 27.01.2025, which reads

as under:

The question of maintainability is kept open for the present.

1. In this petition, petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seek quashing of the impugned remand order dated 24.01.2025 as well as impugned FIR and complaint in Crime No.11/2025 registered by the 1st respondent - Police, pending on the file of I Addl.CMM Court, Bangalore, for offences alleged under Sections 109, 118(1) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 and for other reliefs.

2. Along with the petition, petitioners have filed I.A.3/2025 seeking their release by way of interim bail pending disposal of the present petition.

3. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the 1st respondent - State and perused the material on record.

4. Issue notice to the 2nd respondent returnable by 17.02.2025.

5. Apart from urging other contentions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the material on record in order to point out that at the time of their arrest, neither

NC: 2025:KHC:19888

HC-KAR

the reasons for arrest nor the grounds of arrest had been informed, intimated or communicated to the petitioners as mandatorily required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50(1) Cr.P.C. (Section 47 of BNS, 2023) and as such, the impugned arrest of the petitioners and remand as well as the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed and the petitioners be released on interim bail immediately without any further delay. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India - (2024) 7 SCC 576;

(ii) Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2024) 8 SCC 254;

(iii) Joginderkumar vs. State of U.P. - (1994) 3 SCR 661;

(iv) D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal - (1996) SCR Suppl.

284;

6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the 1st respondent - State would oppose the submissions made by the petitioners and submit that pursuant to the FIR in Crime No.11/2025 registered against the petitioners on 23.01.2025 at 7.30 p.m., the 1st respondent - police had furnished / supplied / communicated the grounds of arrest to the petitioners on 24.01.2025 at 4.30 p.m. as can be seen from the Memorandum of Grounds of Arrest and as such, petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for by them.

7. A perusal of the material on record including the OPD summary of the petitioners at K.C.General Hospital, Bangalore, will indicate that the petitioners had been arrested on 23.01.2025 itself and had been taken for medical checkup in the aforesaid Hospital at around 12.45 a.m. in the midnight of 23.01.2025 which falsifies the alleged Memorandum of grounds arrest which indicates that the same was served subsequently upon the petitioners on 24.01.2025 at 4.30 p.m.; in other words, the contention of the 1st respondent - Police that they arrested

NC: 2025:KHC:19888

HC-KAR

the petitioners at 4.30 p.m. on 24.01.2025 at which time, they supplied the grounds of arrest is clearly falsified and belied by the medical reports which indicate that they were not only arrested on the previous day on 23.01.2025 but also that they had not been served with the grounds of arrest at that time. In addition thereto, a perusal of the alleged grounds of arrest which will also indicate that the same contain bald, vague, cryptic and laconic allegations which are not sufficient or inconformity with the mandatory requirements of providing particulars, details etc., of the grounds of arrest to the petitioners as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50(1) Cr.P.C. (Section 47 of BNS, 2023); in fact, except stating that the 2nd respondent - complainant had alleged in his complaint that when he went to the office of the petitioners - accused, they threatened him with a Revolver, necessary ingredients and material particulars in this regard are conspicuously absent and consequently, the impugned actions as well as the arrest of the petitioners would prima-facie indicate that the same are contrary to Articles 21, 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments.

8. Under these circumstances, 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 1st respondent - Police to release the petitioners on interim bail for a period of three weeks from today, subject to the following conditions:

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

b) The petitioners shall not involve in similar offences in future;

NC: 2025:KHC:19888

HC-KAR

c) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation;

d) Each of the petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of one week from today.

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

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

I.A.No.3/2025 is disposed of accordingly.

Re-list on 17.02.2025.

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Jail Authorities forthwith without any delay both electronically and telephonically.

Hand delivery of this order is permitted.

4. In pursuance of the same, petitioner has been

enlarged on bail. Under these circumstances, nothing further

survives in the petition. In view of the aforesaid interim order

passed by this Court by holding that the very arrest of the

petitioner was illegal, consequently, remand necessarily have to

be quashed.

5. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

NC: 2025:KHC:19888

HC-KAR

ORDER

i) The petition is hereby allowed.

ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.11/2025 on

the file of I Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru, insofar

as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.

iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take

recourse to other remedies as available in law and to

challenge FIR and complaint in accordance with law.

iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are

kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

Sd/-

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS