Karnataka High Court
Shyamal Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 October, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39574
CRL.P No. 13210 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13210 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SHYAMAL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
SON OF NIRMAL KUMAR
RESIDING AT NO. 2, 3RD CROSS,
8TH MAIN, HOYSALA NAGAR,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560 016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NITYA KALYANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDAN SHREEKANT MALAPUR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY:
Digitally THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
signed by
LAKSHMI T INDIRANAGAR PS
Location: REPRESENTED BY
High Court THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
of Karnataka
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
2. SANTHOSHKUMAR
AGED MAJOR, OFFICER,
BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED.
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 55,
DIVYASHREE TOWERS,
BANNERGHATTA,
BANGALORE- 560 029
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDL SPP FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39574
CRL.P No. 13210 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE FOLLOWING
IMPUGNED DIRECTION - NOTWITHSTANDING THIS ORDER OF
ANTICIPATORY BAIL THE I.O IS AT LIBERTY TO TAKE THE
PETITIONER INTO THEIR CUSTODY WITH PRIOR PERMISSION
OF THE CONCERNED MAGISTRATE, IF THE PETITIONER IS
ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED FOR CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION
AND CONSEQUENTIAL RECOVERY, IN ANY IN THE ORDER DTD
16.06.2025 OF THE LEARNED LXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69) IN
CRL.MISC.NO.3551/2025, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
Heard both sides and perused the impugned order.
2. The learned Sessions Judge while granting
anticipatory bail to the petitioner has reserved liberty to
the I.O. to take the petitioner into their custody with prior
permission of the concerned Magistrate, if the petitioner is
absolutely required for custodial interrogation and
consequential recovery, if any.
3. Petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in
FIR.No.60/2025 registered at Indiranagar Police Station,
NC: 2025:KHC:39574
HC-KAR
Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section
314, 316(2), 318(2), 318(4) of the BNS, 2023.
4. The learned Sessions Judge having held that
the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, was not
justified in reserving liberty to the Investigating Officer to
take the petitioner into custody for custodial interrogation.
5. It is relevant to refer to paragraph No.69 of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'TUSHARBHAI
RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH V/S. KAMAL DAYANI1' extracted
hereunder:-
69. "Thus, the power to grant
anticipatory bail is not to be exercised in a
routine manner and the Courts are expected
to use this provision with a great degree of
circumspection. Once, a Court bearing in
mind the strict parameters applicable to grant
of anticipatory bail exercises such power,
then in such a situation, giving a handle to
the Investigating Officer to seek police
custody remand of the accused, would
virtually negate and frustrate the very
(2025) 1 SCC 753
NC: 2025:KHC:39574
HC-KAR
purpose behind the order of anticipatory bail.
Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that
the practice prevalent in the State of Gujarat
that the Courts while dealing with the
anticipatory bail application routinely impose
the restrictive condition whereby, the
Investigating Officers are granted blanket
permission to seek police custody remand of
the accused, in whose favour the order of
anticipatory bail is passed, is in direct
contravention to the ratio of the Constitution
Bench judgment of this Court in Sushila
Agarwal2. The Division Bench judgment of the
Gujarat High Court in Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai
Kothari3 does not hold good in law as the
same runs contrary to the ratio of Sushila
Agarwal(supra) and thus, the same stands
impliedly overruled."
6. The learned Sessions Judge has imposed
several conditions while extending the benefit of
anticipatory bail to petitioner. The impugned
Sushila Aggrwa V/s. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1: (2020) SCC (Cri) 721
Sunilbhai Sundhirbhai Kothari V/s. State of Gujarat, 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 16054
NC: 2025:KHC:39574
HC-KAR
condition/observation would virtually negate and frustrate
the very purpose behind the order of anticipatory bail.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed.
ii) The operation of the impugned direction, in
Crl.Misc.No.3551/2025 dated 16.06.2025 passed by the
Court of LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City, is hereby set aside.
iii) All other conditions imposed by the learned
Sessions Judge at Nos.1 to 8 shall be intact and complied
by the petitioner.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
LDC
