Mubarak @ Mubbu @ Thofik Noree vs State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 5326 Kant

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5326 Kant
Judgement Date : 21 March, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Mubarak @ Mubbu @ Thofik Noree vs State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2025

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                  -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC:11983
                                                         CRL.P No. 3346 of 2025




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                               BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                  CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3346 OF 2025
                        BETWEEN:

                        1.    MUBARAK @ MUBBU @ THOFIK NOREE
                              S/O SHAMAN SHAVALI
                              AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
                              M.N. CIRCLE, GARADI HOUSE NEAR
                              BOMMANAKATTE
                              BHADRAVATHI TOWN-577301
                              SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

                        2.    SATYANANDA @ PANNE @ SNAKE SATYA
                              S/O KUMARA
                              AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
                              2ND DIVISION, BOMMANAKATE
                              BHADRAVATHI TOWN-577 301
                              SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
                              ALSO AT
Digitally signed by B
K
                              GOVERNMENT SCHOOL NEAR
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
                              TARIKATTE VILLAGE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                              BHADRAVATHI TOWN-577301
                              SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

                        3.  IBRAHIM KHALEEL @ KHALEEL @ SANNA KHALEEL
                            S/O MAHABOOB PEER
                            AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
                            RESIDING AT BOMMANAKATTE 1ST CROSS
                            BAVI NEAR HOUSE
                            BHADRAVATHI TOWN-577301
                            SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
                                                                ...PETITIONERS
                        (BY SRI. SUHAIB FAZEEL M., ADVOCATE)
                                  -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:11983
                                             CRL.P No. 3346 of 2025




AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BHADRAVATHI OLD TOWN POLICE STATION,
REP. BY HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001.
                                                     ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAGADISH, ADDL. SPP A/W
    SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R1)

      THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE REMAND DATED
21.12.2023       SUBMITTED         IN      CR.NO.198/2023
(S.C.NO.5032/2024) BEFORE THE LEARNED 2ND ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE
P/U/S 302, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC FILED BY OLD TOWN POLICE,
BHADRAVATHI.

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

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR


                           ORAL ORDER

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 3, who are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506, and 149 of the IPC, are before this Court seeking relief.

2. The case was registered as Crime No. 198/2023 for the aforesaid offences. The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 3, were apprehended and remanded to judicial custody on 20.12.2023. The petitions filed by the petitioners seeking bail have been rejected.

3. The petitioners contend that the grounds for their arrest were not disclosed or served on them at the time of arrest, which violates

NC: 2025:KHC:11983

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Manoj Parihar & ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & ors. [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560].

4. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1 submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to release, even though the grounds were not disclosed or served on them at the time of arrest, because the petitions for bail have already been dismissed. It was further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576] is prospective in its effect and cannot be applied to the present case.

5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

6. The petitioners were arrested on 20.12.2023 without the grounds for their arrest being disclosed to them. In Ram Kishor Arora vs. Directorate of Enforcement [(2024) 7 SCC 599], the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that the requirement to convey the reasons for the grounds of arrest in writing, as laid down in the Pankaj Bansal case, shall have a prospective effect, operating from the date of the pronouncement of that judgment. The judgment further noted the inconsistent practices followed by officers arresting persons under Section 19 of the PMLA, and directed that, henceforth, the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing as a matter of course from the date of the pronouncement of the said judgment.

NC: 2025:KHC:11983

7. In Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana [2925 SCC OnLine (SC) 269], the Hon'ble Apex Court noted the argument by the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent--that after arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody and that a charge sheet has now been filed, thereby justifying continued custody-- would effectively nullify Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court observed that once an arrest is deemed unconstitutional due to a violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Consequently, the continued custody of a person based on remand orders is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet or an order of cognizance does not validate an arrest that is inherently unconstitutional under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court further emphasized that the safeguards provided under Article 22 cannot be compromised.

8. In the present case, the arrest of the petitioners occurred after the decision in Ram Kishor Arora was rendered. Therefore, the decision in Pankaj Bansal is fully applicable to the facts of this case. The arrest of the petitioners, which is in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is vitiated by the failure to disclose the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest.

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The remand order dated 21.12.2023, submitted in Crime No. 198/2023 (SC No.5032)24, pending before the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, is hereby quashed.

NC: 2025:KHC:11983

10. The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 3, are to be released forthwith from the judicial custody of the concerned Jail Authority in Crime No. 198/2023 (SC No.5032)24, pending before the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, for the offences under Sections 302, 504, 506, and 149 of the IPC registered by the Old Town Police, Bhadravathi, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, along with one surety each, for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.