Karnataka High Court

Charan H V vs State Of Karnataka By on 30 October, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:43591
                                                       CRL.A No. 2056 of 2025


                     HC-KAR
                                                                                R
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                                              BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2056 OF 2025
                    BETWEEN:

                    CHARAN H V,
                    S/O VIJAY KUMAR,
                    AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
                    R/AT HUBBANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
                    SANTHEBACHAHALLI HOBLI,
                    K R PETE, MANDYA - 571 426.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                    (BY SRI NIKIL SAI, ADVOCATE FOR
                     SMT YUKTHA N.,ADVOCATE)

                    AND:

                    1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
                          SUBRAMANYAPURA PS,
                          REPRESENTED BY SPP
                          HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by       BANGALORE - 560 001.
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH      2.    VINITHA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                 D/O LATE EERANNA,
                          AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
                          RESIDING AT NO.65,
                          3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS,
                          HANUMAGIRI NAGAR,
                          CHIKKALASANDRA,
                          BENGALURU - 560 061.
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
                    (SMT. ASMA KAUSER, ADDL SPP. FOR R1,
                     R2 SERVED)
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:43591
                                    CRL.A No. 2056 of 2025


HC-KAR




     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA)
ACT BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT
THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2025 IN
CRL.MISC NO.8126/2025 FILED U/S 483 OF BNSS PASSED BY
THE LD LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.351/2025 FOR
OFFENCES P/U/S 69, 89, 351(2) OF THE BNS 2023 AND
SECTION 3(2)(V) OF THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES ACT) 1989 ARRAIGNING THE PETITIONER AS
SOLE ACCUSED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY
GRANT REGULAR BAIL IN 351/2025 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 69,
89, 351(2) OF THE BNS 2023 AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF THE SC
AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT) 1989 ARRAIGNING
THE PETITIONER AS SOLE ACCUSED VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the

order dated 26.09.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.8126/2025 passed

by the L Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru c/c

LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short

"the trial Court").

2. The Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the

basis of complaint filed by the victim, Subramanyapura

Police have registered the case in Crime No.351/2025

NC: 2025:KHC:43591

HC-KAR

against the accused for commission of offences under

sections 69, 89, 351(2) of BNSS-2023 and Section 3(2)(v)

of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

3. The accused was arrested on 15.09.2025 and

remanded to judicial custody. On behalf of the

accused/appellant bail application was filed under Section

483 of BNSS 2023 seeking regular bail before the Trial

court. Same came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by this

order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

would vehemently submit that, the accused produced

before the Court on 16.09.2025 and he was remanded to

judicial custody till 30.09.2025. On 30.09.2025, the trial

court has passed an order that accused not produced from

judicial custody and to await final report list on

10.10.2025. It is submitted that, in view of the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jigar Alias Jimmy

Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat reported

NC: 2025:KHC:43591

HC-KAR

in (2023) 6 SCC 484 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has observed that no Magistrate shall authorise the

detention of the accused in the custody of the Police

unless the accused produced before him in-person.

Further, he would submit that the Investigating Officer has

not complied mandatory provisions of 187(4) of BNSS-

2023. The accused is not required for investigation, for

that purpose the Investigating Officer has not sought the

accused for further extension of this accused in judicial

custody. Accused has not committed any offence as

alleged against him. The alleged commission of offences

are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Further, he would submit once an order of remand expires

and a fresh order of remand is not passed, merely noting

the next date of production on the jail warrant without

there being anything in the order sheet committing or

further continuing such custody becomes illegal, which

cannot be cured by subsequent order of remand for a

subsequent period. To substantiate this argument, he

NC: 2025:KHC:43591

HC-KAR

relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Ram Narayan Singh Vs. State of Delhi reported

in AIR 1953 SC 277 and also in the case of Subhash Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh.

5. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP Smt. Asma Kauser

would submit that there are prima facie materials to

attract the alleged commission of offences. At this stage,

if the accused is released on bail, he may tamper or

threaten the prosecutions witnesses. On all these

grounds, she sought for rejection of the appeal.

6. I have examined the materials placed before this

Court and perused the materials on record.

7. On the basis of the complaint filed by the victim,

Subramanyapura Police have registered the case in Crime

No.351/2025 against the accused for the alleged

commission of offences under sections 69, 89, 351(2) of

BNSS-2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,

1989.

NC: 2025:KHC:43591

HC-KAR

8. It is alleged by the prosecution that the de-facto

Complainant is employed as a Cashier at Brundavana

Hotel, situated at Ramanjaneya Nagar, Chikkallasandra.

She hails from Bellary and belongs to the Valmiki Nayak

community. In the said hotel, the Appellant operates a

juice center. The Appellant is a native of Mandya district

and belongs to the Okkaliga community. During their

acquaintance in the month of November 2024, the

Appellant proposed to the complainant and assured her

that he would marry her. Subsequently, they began

residing together at House No. 65, 3rd Main, 6th Cross,

Hanumagiri Nagar, Chikkallasandra, from 20.11.2024 to

14.08.2025. During this period, the Appellant gave

assurances of marriage and had physical relations with the

complainant on multiple occasions, as a result of which

she became pregnant. At that time, the Appellant

administered abortion tablets to the complainant.

Whenever the complainant raised the issue of marriage,

the Appellant would cite various reasons to postpone it.

NC: 2025:KHC:43591

HC-KAR

Eventually, he refused to marry her, citing her caste as the

reason and asserting that his family would not accept the

marriage. He also allegedly threatened her with dire

consequences if she continued to approach him regarding

the matter of marriage. Based on this complaint, the

Police have registered the case in Crime No.351/2025 for

the offences under sections 69, 89, 351(2) of BNS and

Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 arriving this

appellant as accused.

9. The accused was arrested on 15.09.2025. On that

day he was remanded to judicial custody till 30.09.2025.

On that day, the Investigating Officer had not submitted

remand application. On 30.09.2025, the accused was not

produced before the Court from judicial custody and the

Court has not passed any order as to extension of

remanding the accused to judicial custody till 10.10.2025.

Without assigning any reasons, the Trial Court has

adjourned the case on 10.10.2025. In this regard, this

Court has received the report from the concerned

NC: 2025:KHC:43591

HC-KAR

Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer has submitted his

report in which it is stated that the accused was not

produced from judicial custody either in-person or through

video conference and the Investigating Officer did not file

a remand application seeking extension of judicial custody.

Further, the Investigating Officer has not submitted as to

compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 187(4) of

BNSS-2023.

10. I have gone through the decision in the case of Jigar

Alias Jimmy (supra). At Para 41 of the judgment, it is

observed as under:

"Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 167 CrPC lays down that no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused in the custody of the police unless the accused is produced before him in person. It also provides that judicial custody can be extended on the production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage. Thus, the requirement of the law is that while extending the remand to judicial custody, the presence of the accused has to be procured either physically or virtually. This is the mandatory

NC: 2025:KHC:43591

HC-KAR

requirement of law. This requirement is sine qua non for the exercise of the power to extend the judicial custody remand. The reason is that the accused has a right to oppose the prayer for the extension of the remand."

11. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Subhash Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

(supra), this Court held as under:

"Once the order of remand expires and a fresh order of remand is not passed, merely noting the next date of production on the jail warrant without there being anything in the order-sheet, committing or further continuing such custody, the detention becomes illegal, which cannot be cured by a subsequent order of remand for subsequent period."

12. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the accused is

entitled for bail. Apart from this, the alleged commission

of offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment

for life. The accused is not required for further

investigation.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43591

HC-KAR

13. Considering the nature and gravity of offences,

previous antecedents of the accused, it is just and proper

to allow this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 26.09.2025 in

Crl.Misc.No.8126/2025 passed by the

L Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru c/c LXX Addl. City Civil &

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside.



      (iii)   Consequently,        the      bail    application    filed

              under      Section   483        of     BNSS-2023,        is

              allowed.