Nanjunda vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2026

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                             1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                         BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.16200/2025

BETWEEN :

NANJUNDA
S/O RAMESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT MARAVANJII VILLAGE
YAGATI HOBLI
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMANGALORE -45
                                         ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C, ADVOCATE)

AND :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY BANAVARA POLICE STATION
HASSAN DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
                                        ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
                               2




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS)
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER    ON    BAIL  IN  SC   No.155/2025(CRIME
No.32/2025), PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 103(1), 115(2),
118(1), 351(2), 351(3) READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS
BY BANAVARA POLICE.

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.01.2026, THIS DAY,
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING;

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR



                       CAV ORDER

     This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section

483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in S.C.No.155/2025

(Crime No.32/2025 of Banavara Police Station), pending on

the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, for

the offence punishable under Section 103(1), 115(2),

118(1), 351(2), 351(3) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023.


     2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned HCGP for respondent / State.
                                  3




      3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

that a complaint has been filed by the wife of the deceased

and she is the eye witness to the incident. CWs.1 to 9 are

eye witnesses to the incident and out of them, CWs.2 and 3

are injured persons.    The petitioner has been arrested on

05.04.2025 and he is in judicial custody.           As the charge

sheet is filed, petitioner is not required for further custodial

interrogation.   The   grounds       of   arrest   have   not   been

furnished to the petitioner prior to he being produced

before the Judicial Magistrate. As the grounds of arrest are

not furnished to the petitioner, the arrest and remand are

illegal and therefore, the petitioner requires to be set at

liberty.   There is a significant difference between the

reasons for arrest and grounds of arrest. The reasons for

arrest as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal

parameters. The grounds of arrest would invariably be

personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the

reasons of arrest which are general in nature.             On that
                               4




point, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ahmed Mansoor and

others vs. State Rep. by Assistant Commissioner of

Police (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2650).

     The learned counsel has placed reliance on the

following decisions on the point that arrest is illegal if the

grounds of arrest are not furnished to the accused:

     (i)      Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
                 (2024) 8 SCC 254

     (ii)     Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra
              and another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356)

     On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition.


     3. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the

arrest intimation has been given to the sister of the

petitioner and in that it is mentioned that he has been

arrested for investigation.    In answer to 11 guidelines,

there is a mention at column No.5 that reason for arrest

has been intimated to the accused. The petitioner is aware

of the grounds on which he has been arrested. Therefore,
                                5




there is no violation of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest.

There is a serious overt act alleged against this petitioner of

assaulting the deceased with knife on his ribs.     There are

nine eye witnesses i.e., CWs.1 to 9 who have seen the

petitioner assaulting the deceased with knife on his ribs.

Out of them, CWs.2 and 3 are injured and accused No.1 is

stated to have assaulted them with knife on their back and

hand.     The charge sheet material show prima-facie case

against the petitioner for the offence alleged against him.

One of the offence is provided with punishment with death

or imprisonment of life.    The offence alleged against the

petitioner is a heinous offence. If the petitioner is granted

bail, there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses.       On

these grounds, he prayed to reject the petition.


     4. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has

perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on

record.
                              6




     5. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet

is that accused No.1 was working under deceased -

Lakkappa.   At that time, he had committed theft of copra

and he was caught and deceased has removed him from

job. The accused felt that he has been insulted and told the

deceased that he will show his another face.      With that

grudge, on 04.04.2025 at about 11.30 p.m. when CWs.2 to

6 were playing chowkabara i.e. cross-and-circle board ludo

game in front of house of one Basavanna, at that time,

accused No.1 came there and told CWs.2 to 6 that they are

playing Jujata i.e. gambling and will intimate the same to

the police by making a call to 112 and get lodged a case

against them.   CWs.2 to 6 after playing the game, they

were sitting and talking and at about 11.45 p.m., deceased

came to go to his copra shed.    At that time, CWs.2 to 6

intimated regarding the said aspect.   Therefore, deceased

along with CWs.2 to 6 went near the house of accused No.1

and asked him why he is making a false statement to the
                              7




police.   At that time, accused No.2 was present with

accused No.1 and they quarreled with deceased and

assaulted him.    Accused No.2 went inside the house of

accused No.1 and brought knife and assaulted with the said

knife on the left side ribs and accused No.1 snatched the

knife from accused No.2 and assaulted with the said knife

on the left side chest of deceased and deceased fell down.

CW.2 and 3 went to rescue and at that time, accused No.1

assaulted CW.2 with a knife on his back and assaulted CW.3

with knife on his left hand and caused injuries. CWs.1, 7, 8

and 9 went to ask the accused persons, at that time,

accused persons gave them life threat.


     6. CWs.1 to 9 are the eye witnesses and out of them,

CWs.2 and 3 are the injured in the incident.           Their

statement clearly indicate the overt act of this petitioner

and another accused assaulting the deceased with knife on

his chest.   The PM report indicates that cause of death is
                                      8




hemorrhagic shock due to penetrating injury to lung and

chest sustained.


      7. CWs. 2 and 3 have sustained one simple injury.

The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section

103(1)      of    BNS   which   is       punishable    with   death   or

imprisonment for life. CWs.1 to 8 are eye witnesses to the

incident.        Considering the severity of the offence, the

petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. If the petitioner is

granted bail, there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses.

Considering the above aspects, the petitioner is not entitled

for grant of bail.


      8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that

the grounds of arrest are not furnished to accused and

therefore, the arrest is illegal and petitioner requires to be

set at liberty. In order to ascertain whether the grounds of

arrest are furnished to the petitioner, this Court has

secured the records of the trial Court.               On perusal of the
                                 9




records of the trial Court, this Court finds that grounds of

arrest are not furnished to the petitioner.

     9. In Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:


           48. It may be reiterated at the cost of
     repetition that there is a significant difference in the
     phrase 'reasons for arrest' and 'grounds of arrest'.
     The 'reasons for arrest' as indicated in the arrest
     memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent
     the accused person from committing any further
     offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to
     prevent   the   accused   person    from   causing   the
     evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering
     with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the
     arrested person for making inducement, threat or
     promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
     the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
     facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer.
     These reasons would commonly apply to any person
     arrested on charge of a crime whereas the 'grounds
     of arrest' would be required to contain all such
     details in hand of the Investigating Officer which
     necessitated    the     arrest     of   the   accused.
     Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in
                                 10




     writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic
     facts on which he was being arrested so as to
     provide him an opportunity of defending himself
     against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the
     'grounds of arrest' would invariably be personal to
     the accused and cannot be equated with the 'reasons
     of arrest' which are general in nature.

     49. From the detailed analysis made above, there is
     no hesitation in the mind of the Court to reach to a
     conclusion that the copy of the remand application in
     the purported exercise of communication of the
     grounds of arrest in writing was not provided to the
     appellant accused or his counsel before passing of
     the order of remand dated              4-10-2023 which
     vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand of the
     appellant.


     50. As a result, the appellant is entitled to a direction
     for release from custody by applying the ratio of the
     judgment rendered by this Court in Pankaj Bansal.


     10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah

(supra)   considering    the   provisions      of   Article   22   of

Constitution of India, Section 50 of Cr.P.C. and Section 47

of BNSS, 2023 and referring to the decisions in the case of
                                 11




Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Senthil Balaji v. State

(2024) 3 SCC 51, Prabir Purkayastha (supra), Vihan Kumar

and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC

427 has observed as under:

            45. From the catena of decisions discussed
     above, the legal position which emerges is that the
     constitutional mandate provided in Article 22(1) of
     the Constitution of India is not a mere procedural
     formality but a constitutional safeguard in the form
     of fundamental rights. The intent and purpose of the
     constitutional mandate is to prepare the arrested
     person to defend himself. If the provisions of Article
     22(1) are read in a restrictive manner, its intended
     purpose of securing personal liberty would not be
     achieved rather curtailed and put to disuse. The
     mode of communicating the grounds of arrest must
     be such that it effectively serves the intended
     purpose as envisioned under the Constitution of
     India which is to enable the arrested person to get
     legal counsel, oppose the remand and effectively
     defend    himself    by   exercising    his    rights   and
     safeguards as provided in law. The grounds of arrest
     must be provided to the arrestee in such a manner
     that   sufficient   knowledge   of     facts   constituting
                               12




grounds is imparted and communicated to the
arrested person effectively in a language which
he/she understands. The mode of communication
ought to be such that it must achieve the intended
purpose    of    the     constitutional     safeguard.       The
objective of the constitutional mandate would not be
fulfilled by mere reading out the grounds to the
arrested   person,     such    an    approach        would    be
antithesis to the purpose of Article 22(1). There is no
harm in providing the grounds of arrest in writing in
the   language     the     arrestee       understands,       this
approach would not only fulfill the true intent of the
constitutional mandate but will also be beneficial for
the investigating agency to prove that the grounds of
arrest   were   informed      to    the   arrestee    when     a
challenge is made to the arrest on the plea of non-
furnishing of the grounds of arrest.


46. This Court is of the opinion that to achieve the
intended objective of the constitutional mandate of
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the
grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrested
person in each and every case without exception and
the mode of the communication of such grounds
must be in writing in the language he understands.
                                           13




     11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision has

considered the effect of non furnishing the grounds of

arrest in para 54 and 55 which reads as under:

              54. In view of the above, we hold with regard
     to the second issue that non supply of grounds of
     arrest    in    writing       to     the   arrestee    prior    to    or
     immediately after arrest would not vitiate such arrest
     on   the       grounds        of     non-compliance         with     the
     provisions of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 (now
     Section 47 of BNSS 2023) provided the said grounds
     are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and
     in any case two hours prior to the production of the
     arrestee        before        the     magistrate      for      remand
     proceedings.


              55. It goes without saying that if the above
     said schedule for supplying the grounds of arrest in
     writing is not adhered to, the arrest will be rendered
     illegal entitling the release of the arrestee. On such
     release, an application for remand or custody, if
     required, will be moved along with the reasons and
     necessity for the same, after the supply of the
     grounds        of    arrest     in   writing   setting      forth    the
     explanation for non-supply thereof within the above
     stipulated          schedule.        On    receipt    of    such     an
                                   14




     application, the magistrate shall decide the same
     expeditiously      and   preferably   within   a   week   of
     submission thereof by adhering to the principles of
     natural justice.


     12. In the case on hand also, the investigating officer

who has arrested the petitioner produced him before the

jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate has not furnished the

grounds of arrest to the petitioner.          Therefore, the arrest

will be rendered illegal entitling the release of arrestee.

     The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case has also

observed as under:

     60.     ......However, the prosecution may move an
     application for remand or custody, if required, along
     with the reasons and necessity for the same, after the
     supply of the grounds of arrest in writing to the
     accused, before the magistrate if the case has not
     been committed for trial and in case the trial having
     commenced before the Trial Court as the case may be.



     Considering the above aspects the following:
                              15




                        ORDER
i) The petition is partly allowed.
ii) The petitioner is set at liberty. However, the
prosecution may move an application for
remand/custody after supply of grounds of arrest
in writing to the petitioner/accused No.2 before the
trial Court.
iii) The remand of the petitioner and accused No.1
has been sought by Circle Police Inspector,
Arsikere Rural Circle, Arsikere. There has been
lapse on the part of the CPI, Arsikere Rural Circle
in not furnishing the grounds of arrest to the
petitioner/accused No.2 and accused No.1 and