Murali B N vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1751 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Murali B N vs State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                            -1-
                                                        NC: 2026:KHC:11283
                                                    CRL.P No. 2898 of 2026


                HC-KAR



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                         BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                          CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2898 OF 2026
                                 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
                BETWEEN:

                1.    MURALI B.N.
                      S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA.B,
                      AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                      R/AT NO.202,
                      BELAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE/POST,
                      VEMAGAL HOBLI,
                      KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 133.
                      (AS PER REMAND APPLICATION)

                      MURALI B.N.
                      S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA.B,
                      AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by             R/AT BELAMARANAHALLI,
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY            KOLAR TALUK,
Location:             KARNATAKA - 563 133.
High Court of
Karnataka             (AS PER AADHAR)

                2.    CHARAN,
                      S/O NARAYANASWAMY,
                      AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
                      R/AT NO.32,
                      BELAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE/POST,
                      VEMAGAL HOBLI,
                      KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 133.
                      (AS PER REMAND APPLICATION)
                             -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC:11283
                                        CRL.P No. 2898 of 2026


HC-KAR



     CHARAN.N,
     S/O NARAYANASWAMY,
     AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
     R/AT VISHWANATHAPURA,
     GUTTAHALLI,
     BETAMARANAHALLI,
     BANGARAPET,
     KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 133.
     (AS PER AADHAR).
                                                ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HEMANTHA B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY RAJAJINAGARA P.S,
     REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   SMT. JYOTI,
     W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.6/Y,
     16TH MAIN ROAD,
     3RD BLOCK,
     RAJAJINAGARA,
     BENGALURU - 560 010.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

       THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2026
IN   CRIME    NO.25/2026    OF    THE     RESPONDENT     NO.1
                               -3-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC:11283
                                       CRL.P No. 2898 of 2026


HC-KAR



RAJAJINAGARA POLICE STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
P/US/ 115(2), 137(2), 351(2), 3(5), 329(4) OF BNSS, PASSED
BY THE HONBLE 32nd ACJM, BENGALURU.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                         ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

an order dated 16.02.2026 passed in Crime No.25/2026

registered for offences punishable under Sections 115(2),

137(2), 351(2), 3(5) and 329(4) of the BNS.

2. Heard Sri. Hemantha B., learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP

appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material

on record.

3. Petitioner No.1 is the son-in-law and respondent

No.2 is the complainant. The complainant alleges that her

daughter who is the wife of petitioner No.1 has been kidnapped

by him and therefore, the crime is registered for the aforesaid

offences.

NC: 2026:KHC:11283

HC-KAR

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the daughter of the complainant and petitioner

No.1 are married and on her own volition, has walked into the

house of petitioner No.1. Prima-facie, looks like a classic

illustration of the abuse of process of the law.

5. What is alleged in the case at hand is the offence

punishable under Section 363 of the IPC. It is an admitted fact

that the daughter of the complainant is beyond 18 years and

has married accused No.1. In that light, the offence of Section

363 of the IPC is wrongly laid against the petitioners. If the said

offence is wrongly laid, bail ought to have been granted in the

aforesaid offence and not remand the petitioners to judicial

custody.

6. In that light, the petitioners are entitled the benefit

being set at liberty in the teeth of the aforesaid offences which

were all bailable. Since the offences were bailable, there could

not have been order of remand to judicial custody of the

petitioners.

NC: 2026:KHC:11283

HC-KAR

7. In the light of offences being bailable, a remand to

judicial custody could not have passed by the concerned Court.

Therefore, there is an error apparent.

8. In the light of the petitioners being taken into

custody for such an offence, the inevitable conclusion would be

them being set at liberty.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 16.02.2026 passed in Crime No.25/2026 by the 32nd ACJM, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

(iii) The petitioners shall be set at liberty in accordance with law.

(iv) Registry is directed to communicate the said order to the jail authorities to release the petitioners from prison, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Page No.5 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 24.02.2026