[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shivaraj S vs State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 20.02.2026
Pronounced on : 13.03.2026
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.141 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SHIVARAJ S.,
S/O SOMASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT GURUPURA 1ST CROSS
NAJUNDESHWARA ROAD
VIDYANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UTSAV GOWDA P. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
N.R.PURA POLICE
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU -560 001.
2. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
DISTRICT PRISON
CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101
2
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU -560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF REMAND DATED
26.05.2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE PETITIONER
PASSED IN CR.NO.43/2025 OF N.R. P.S. ON THE FILE OF CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC N.R. PURA WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE II
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN
SC.NO.113/2025 AND RELEASE THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.2 is before the Court calling in
question remand order dated 26-05-2025 and seeks consequential
release of the petitioner in Crime No.43 of 2025 pending before the
II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in
S.C.No.113 of 2025 for offence punishable under Sections 103(1) -
murder, 55 and 3(5) of the BNS, on the ground that when the
petitioner was taken into custody, he was not produced before the
learned Magistrate within 24 hours, which is violative of the
Constitutional right under sub-article (2) of Article 22 of the
Constitution of India.
2. Heard Sri Utsav Gowda P.S., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.43 of 2025 for
offences punishable under Sections 55, 103(1) and3(5) of the BNS.
The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 had given supari
to the petitioner/accused No.2 to murder her husband. The accused
persons, therefore, had conspired the murder of the husband of
accused No.1 and had executed the act on the night of 23-05-2025.
The petitioner/accused No.2 was apprehended at Kachinakatte Bus
Stop, Shivamogga at 3.30 p.m. on 25-05-2025. He was produced
before the Police Sub-Inspector of the 1st respondent/Police Station
on the same day and, therefore, he was officially arrested at 5.00
p.m. on the same day by drawing up a detailed arrest panchanama.
The details of grounds of arrest and reasons for arrest are furnished
to the petitioner and his father. The petitioner was produced before
the learned Magistrate on the next day at 5.25 p.m. As per the
order of the learned Magistrate, the accused was arrested between
5.30 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. on 25-05-2025, the arrest was notified to
the family members and was produced before him the next day at
5.25 p.m. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet
against the petitioner for offence of murder. On filing of the charge
sheet, the petitioner seeks his release from prison on grant of
regular bail. This comes to be rejected on 11-12-2025. After
rejection of bail, the petitioner presents the subject petition on a
plea that he was not produced before the learned Magistrate within
24 hours and, therefore, the remand application for judicial custody
should be obliterated and he should be set at liberty.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
reiterate the grounds set out in the petition by contending that
there was a delay of one hour fifty-five minutes from the
petitioner/accused No.2 being apprehended and delay of twenty-
five minutes from the time of official arrest in producing the
accused before the learned Magistrate. He would submit that his
fundamental rights are violated and seeks to place reliance upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in DIRECTORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT v. SUBHASH SHARMA - 2025 SCC OnLine SC
240 and the judgment of Kerala High Court in BISWAJIT
MANDAL v. INSPECTOR, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU -
2025 SCC OnLine Ker. 6017 to buttress his submissions.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Sri B.N. Jagadeesha appearing for the respondents would refute the
submissions in contending that regular jurisdictional Magistrate was
on leave and because of that the accused had to be presented
before the in-charge Magistrate. In the process, there was certain
delay in producing the accused and this delay is to be condoned
since travel time is to be excluded. The delay in violation of
guidelines laid down in D.K. BASU v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL -
(1997) 1 SCC 416 cannot be a ground to set the petitioner at
liberty. Regular bail is rejected for heinous crime of acceptance of
supari from the hands of accused No.1 and executing the murder.
He seeks dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls
for consideration is,
"Whether the petitioner/accused No.2 should be set at
liberty on the score that he has not been produced before
the learned Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest?"
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Certain time
along with date is required to be noticed. On 25-05-2025 a crime
comes to be registered in Crime No.43 of 2025. The allegation is
that accused No.1 had given supari to petitioner/accused No.2 to
murder her husband. The petitioner had executed the murder on
the night of 23-03-2025 but he was apprehended at 3.30 p.m. two
days later i.e., on 25-05-2025 and taken to the Police Station at
about 4.45 p.m. on the same day and by drawing up an arrest
panchanama he was officially arrested. The arrest panchanama
reads as follows:
":: ದಸ ಪಂಚ ಾ ::
ೆ : ಕ ಮಗಳ ರು.
ರು ವೃತ : ನ. ಾ.ಪ
ಾ ಪ ರ ವ ತ.
ತ ಾ!ೆ:
ಾ!ೆ ನ. ಾ.ಪ
ಾ ಪರ
2. ಕಲಂ. 55.103(1), 3(5) '.ಎ*.ಎ+
3. ದಸ ,ಾ-ದ ಸ.ಳ. ನ. ಾಪ ರ /0ೕ+ ಾ!ೆ.
4. ದಸ ,ಾ-ದ 2 ಾಂಕ & ಸಮಯ. 2 ಾಂಕ;-25-05-2025 ರಂದು 17-
00 ಗಂ4ೆ5ೆ
5. ಆ ೋ8ಯನು9 ವಶ;ೆ ಪ<ೆದ 2 ಾಂಕ;-25-05-2025 0ರಂದು 15.30
2 ಾಂಕ, ಸಮಯ, ಗಂ4ೆ5ೆ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ಆ ೋ8=ಾದ
ಸ.ಳ ಮತು =ಾ ಂದ. >ವ ಾ? ಎ+ '* @ೋಮAೇಖರಪC 8
ನು9 >ವDಗEದ ;ಾ ೕನಕ4ೆF ಬ+
H ಾIಣದ ಬK Hರಂಜ* 5ೌಡ, '.ಎ+
8.ಎ+.ಐ ನ. ಾ.ಪ ರ /0ೕ+ ಾ!ೆ
ರವರು ವಶ;ೆ ಪ<ೆದು 16.45 ಗಂ4ೆ5ೆ
PಬQಂ2ಗRೆ ಂ25ೆ Sಾಜರುಪ-PದುI
ವಶ;ೆ ಪ<ೆದು 17-00 ಗಂ4ೆ5ೆ ದಸ
ಕTಮ;ೆ ಒಳಪ-PರುVೆ.
6. ಮಹಜX @ಾYಗಳZ.
>Tೕ Dಹಮ[\ ಅ0 '* Dಹಮ[\ ದಸ X. 41 ವಷ^, ಮುPಂ _ಾಸ ಸುUÀÎಪCನ
ಮಠ, ನ. ಾ.ಪ ರ ಪಟFಣ
ಮHೕb ಕು,ಾX '* ಹ cಶ*, 46 ವಷ^, Pಂ2, _ಾಸ ಾಜ¸ÁÜ* Sಾ ಂd ಲೂe,
ಾಪ ರ 4ೌ*, ನ. ಾ.ಪ ರ.
7. ದಸ =ಾದ ಆ ೋ8ಯ Sೆಸರು & >ವ ಾ? ಎ+ '* @ೋಮAೇಖರಪC 8
fRಾಸ. 33 ವಷ^, gಾಲಕ ವೃh 0ಂ5ಾಯತ
ಜ ಾಂಗ _ಾಸ ಗುರುಪ ರ 01 ೇ hರುವ ,
ನಂಜುಂ<ೇಶiರ ರ@ೆ, fjಾ ನಗರ ಅಂgೆ
>ವDಗE
8. ಸಂfkಾನದ ಅನುgೆlೕದ 22(1) ಮತು (ಪTಕರಣದ0 ಆ ೋ8ತನ mಾತTದ ಕು ತು
BNSS 2023 ರ ಕಲಂ: 47(1) ೕVಾ ಒಂjೊಂjಾ ಸಂYಪ_ಾ hKಸುವ ದು)
ದಸ ಯ ಆkಾರಗಳZ. (Grounds for
Arrest) 1) ಆ ೋ8ಯು ಕಲಂ 103(1) 3(5)
'.ಎ*.ಎ+ ಅ-ಯ0, ಅ ೕವ
;ಾ ಾ_ಾಸ ಮತು ಅ ೕವ ;ಾರ_ಾಸದ
ಅಪ ಾಧ ,ಾ-ರುವ ದ ಂದ.
2) Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾಡjೇ ಇದI0
ಪTಕರಣದ ತH%ೆಯನು9 ಮುಂದುವ ೆಸಲು
@ಾದ fಲjೇ ಇರುವ ;ಾರಣ.
3) Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾಡjೇ ಇದIಲ ಈ
;ೇPನ @ಾpq ಾಶ ,ಾಡುhೕ .
4) Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾ- ಕೃತ ;ೆ
ಬಳPದ ವಸುಗಳZ ಮತು ಕೃತ ದ ಬ5ೆE
@ಾpq ಸಂಗTrಸsೇ;ಾ ರುವ ದ ಂದ
9 BNSS 2023 ರ ಕಲಂ: 35(1) A, ೕತ (ಪTಕರಣದ0 ಆ ೋ8ತನ ಬಂಧನದ
ದಸ Dೕ (Reason for Arrest) ಕು ತು ;ಾರಣಗಳನು9 ಒಂjೊಂjಾ
ಸಂYಪ_ಾ hKಸುವ ದು)
1) ಆ ೋ8ಯು ಕಲಂ 103(1) 3(5)
'.ಎ*.ಎ+ ಅ-ಯ0 ಅ ೕವ ;ಾ ಾ_ಾಸ
ಮತು ಅ ೕವ ;ಾರ_ಾಸದ ಅಪ ಾಧ
,ಾ-ರುವ ದ ಂದ,
2) Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾಡjೇ ಇದI0
ಪTಕರಣದ ತH%ೆಯನು9 ಮುಂದುವ ೆಸಲು
@ಾದ fಲjೇ ಇರುವ ;ಾರಣ,
3) Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾಡjೇ ಇದIಲ ಈ
;ೇPನ @ಾpq ಾಶ ,ಾಡುhೕ .
4) Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾ- ಕೃತ ;ೆ
ಬಳPದ ವಸುಗಳZ ಮತು ಕೃತ ದ ಬ5ೆE @ಾpq
ಸಂಗTrಸsೇ;ಾ ರುವ ದ ಂದ
10 ಆ ೋ8ಯ ವಶದ0 jೊ ೆತ ಸChನ -@ೆFಂಪX ಬಣzದ {ೕ ಶ|^. 2) ;ಾ}
fವರಗಳZ & ಸihನ f ೆ. ಬಣzದ mಾ ಂ|. 3) Hೕ0 ಬಣzದ ಚ-~, (
ಇವ ಗಳನು9 ಆ ೋ8ತನ ವಶದ0•ೕ
'{FರುVೆ. )
11 ಆ ೋ8ಯ ಚಹ ೆ & ೖ ೕ ೆ ಕಂಡು ಬಂದ ;ೋಲುಮುಖ, @ಾjಾರಣ ೖಕಟುF. 5ೋ2
ಗುರುತುಗಳZ/ fAೇಷVೆಗಳZ. ೖ ಬಣz, 5 ಅ- ಎತರ. ಎಡ ;ೆ ೆ9ಯ0
ಕ•zHಂದ ಕRೆ5ೆಸಣz ಕಪ C ಮgೆ‚ ಇರುತjೆ.
12 ದಸ =ಾದ ಬ5ೆE ಆ ೋ85ೆ Sಾಗೂ @ೋಮAೇಖರಪC '* ಪcೕರಪC ರವ 5ೆ
ಸಂಬಂƒಕ 5ೆ BNSS 2023 ರ ಕಲಂ: „ೕ* ಮೂಲಕ hKPರುVೆ.
48(1) ೕತ Hೕ-ದ ,ಾrhಯ
ಇವರು ಆ ೋ8ಯ ತಂjೆ=ಾ ರುVಾ ೆ.
fವರಗಳZ.
13 ಆ ೋ8ಯ ಸಂಬಂƒಕರ/ /ೕಷಕರ ಸr.
ಪಂgಾಯುjಾರರ ಸr.
1] ಸr/- ಸr/-
2] ಸr/- ಆ ೋ8ಯ ಸr"
Grounds of arrest and reasons for arrest are served upon the
petitioner against his signature. They read as follows:
:: ನಮೂ ೆ::
ೆ
ದಸ ಯ ,ಾrh (Grounds of Arrest) ಪತT
ನಂ...............................
ನ. ಾ.ಪ ರ /0ೕ+ ಾ!ೆ.
2 ಾಂಕ: 25-05-2025
ರವ 5ೆ.
>ವ ಾ? ಎ+ '* @ೋಮAೇಖರಪC ... gಾಲಕ ವೃh 0ಂ5ಾಯತ ಜ ಾಂಗ _ಾಸ ವಷ^ 33, ೇ
hರುವ 01 ಗುರುಪ ರನಂಜುಂ<ೇಶiರ ರ@ೆ fjಾ ನಗರ ಅಂgೆ >ವDಗE.
ಸಂfkಾನದ ಅನುgೆlೕದ 22(1) ಮತು '.ಎ*
(ಸಂfkಾನದ ಎ*.
ಎ* ಎ+.
ಎ+.ಎ+-2023
ಎ+ ರ ಕಲಂ:
ಕಲಂ
47(1) ೕVಾ ದಸ ಯ ,ಾrh (Grounds of Arrest) ಪತT.)
ಪತT
ಈ ;ೆಳ5ೆ ಸr ,ಾ-ರುವ ತH%ಾƒ;ಾ =ಾದ †ೊ ೕh, ಎ*.ಎ 8ಎ+ಐ (ತH%ೆ) DzÀ
£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ¸ÀASÉÅ: 43/2025. ಕಲಂ: 55.103(1), 3(5) BNS gÀAvÉ >‡ಾಹ^_ಾದ
ಪTಕರಣದ0 ತH%ೆ ;ೈ5ೊಂ-ದುI, ಲಭ fರುವ @ಾ‡ಾkಾರಗಳ ೕ ೆ5ೆ Hೕವ ಈ ಪTಕರಣದ0
‰ಾ =ಾ ರುವ ದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ2ರುತjೆ. ಈ ಪTಕರಣದ ಕೃತ ದ0 Hಮ[ mಾತTವ ಈ ;ೆಳಕಂಡಂhjೆ
(ಪTಕರಣದ0 ಆ ೋ8ತನ mಾತTದ ಕು ತು ಒಂjೊಂjಾ ಸಂYಪ_ಾ hKಸುವ ದು)
1. Hೕವ ಕಲಂ 103(1) '.ಎ*.ಎ+ ಅ-ಯ0 ಅ ೕವ ;ಾ ಾ_ಾಸ ಮತು ಮರಣದಂಡ ೆ
ಒಳ5ಾಗುವ >‡ೆಯ ಅಪ ಾಧ ,ಾ-ರುವ ದ ಂದ.
2. Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾಡjೇ ಪTಕರಣದ ತH%ೆಯನು9 ಮುಂದುವ ೆಸಲು @ಾದ _ಾಗುವ 2ಲ.
3. Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾಡjೇ ಇದIಲ ಈ ;ೇPನ @ಾpq ಾಶ ,ಾಡುhೕ .
4. ಪTಕರಣದ0 ಕೃತ ನ<ೆPದ ಸ.ಳ ಮತು ಕೃತ ;ೆ ಬಳPದ ವಸುಗಳನು9 HŠ[ಂದ
ವಶಪ-P;ೊಳ‹sೇ;ಾ ರುVೆ.
ೕಲ ಂಡ ;ಾರಣಗKಂದ ಮತು ಲಭ fರುವ @ಾpqkಾರಗಳ ಆkಾರದ ೕ ೆ 2 ಾಂಕ:
25-05-2025 ರಂದು 17-00 ಗಂ4ೆ5ೆ Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾಡ ಾಗುhjೆ. Hಮ[ ದಸ 5ೆ ಇರುವ
ಆjಾರವನು9 Hಮ5ೆ hK2ರುವ ಕನ9ಡ ‰ಾŒೆಯ0 hKಸ ಾ jೆ.
ಸr/-
(ದಸ ,ಾಡುವ ಅƒ;ಾ ಸr)
(Sೆಸರು, ¥ÀzÀ£ÁªÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ªÉƺÀj£ÉÆA¢UÉ)
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
N. R. Pura Police Station
Chikmagalur Dist.
Karnataka State-577134
£À£Àß ದಸ 5ೆ ಇರುವ ಆkಾರಗಳನು9 ತH%ಾƒ;ಾ ಯವರು ನನ5ೆ hK2ರುವ ಕನ9ಡ
‰ಾŒೆಯ0, 2 ಾಂಕ: 25-05-2025 ರಂದು 17-00 ಗಂ4ೆ5ೆ fವ P hKPರುVಾ ೆ.
ಸr/-
ಆ ೋ8ಯ ಸr"
.... .... ....
"ನಮೂ ೆ-3
ದಸ ,ಾ-ದ ಬ5ೆE ಆ ೋ85ೆ Hೕಡ ಾಗುವ ದಸ DDೕ
2 ಾಂಕ:25-05-2025
5ೆ:-
>ವ ಾ? ಎ+ '* @ೋಮAೇಖರಪC 8 33 ವಷ^, gಾಲಕ ವೃh 0ಂ5ಾಯತ ಜ ಾಂಗ _ಾಸ
ಗುರುಪ ರ-01 ೇ hರುವ , ನಂಜುಂ<ೇಶiರ ರ@ೆ, fjಾ ನಗರ ಅಂgೆ >ವDಗE.
ದಸ Dೕ.
Dೕ
(Reason for Arrest)
ಈ ;ೆಳ5ೆ ಸr ,ಾ-ದ ತH%ಾƒ;ಾ =ಾದ †ೊ ೕh,ಎ*.ಎ 8ಎ+ಐ (ತH%ೆ) ನ. ಾ.ಪ ರ ಾ!ೆ ಆದ
ಾನು ನ. ಾ.ಪ ರ ಾ!ೆ D.ನಂ43/2025 ಕಲಂ 55.103(1),3(5) '.ಎ*.ಎ+ ರ ಪTಕರಣದ
ಅನು@ಾರ ತH%ೆಯನು9 ;ೈ5ೊಂ-ರುVೇ ೆ. ಈ ಪTಕರಣದ0 Hೕವ >Tೕಮh ಕಮಲ ರವರ ಗಂಡ
ಸುದಶ^* ರವರನು9 ;ೊ ೆ ,ಾಡಲು ದುµÉàçÃರ!ೆ Hೕ-ದ ;ಾರಣ Hೕವ ಸುದಶ^ನರವರನು9 ;ೊ ೆ
,ಾ-ದುI ೕಲ ಂಡ ಕಲಂ 103(1) 3(5) '.ಎ+.ಎ+ ಅ-ಯ0, >‡ಾಹ^ ಅಪ ಾಧ ,ಾ-ರುhೕ .
ಸದ ಪTಕರಣದ0 Hೕವ ೕ ೊ9ೕಟ;ೆ ಅಪ ಾಧ ಎಸ ದIರ ಬ5ೆE, @ಾ‡ಾkಾರಗಳZ
ಲಭ _ಾ ದುI ಈ ;ೆಳಕಂಡ ;ಾರಣ ಮತು ಆkಾರಗಳ ೕ ೆ Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾಡುವ ದು
ಅಗತ _ೆಂದು ಕಂಡು;ೊಳ‹ ಾ jೆ.
1. Hೕವ ಕಲಂ 103(1) '.ಎ*.ಎ+ ಅ-ಯ0 ಅ ೕವ ;ಾ ಾ_ಾಸ ಮತು ಮರಣದಂಡ ೆ
ಒಳ5ಾಗುವ >‡ೆಯ ಅಪ ಾಧ ,ಾ-ರುವ ದ ಂದ,
2. Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾಡjೇ ಪTಕರಣದ ತH%ೆಯನು9 ಮುಂದುವ ೆಸಲು @ಾದ _ಾಗುವ 2ಲ..
3. Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾಡjೇ ಇದIಲ, ಈ ;ೇPನ @ಾpq ಾಶ ,ಾಡುhೕ .
4. Hೕವ ಇತರ ಅಪ ಾಧವನು9 ,ಾಡುವ ದನು9 ತ<ೆಯಲು,
5. Hೕವ ಅಪ ಾಧ ಕು ತು ಸ =ಾದ ತH%ೆಯನು9 ,ಾಡುವ ದ;ಾ ಸಹ;ಾರ Hೕಡjೇ
ಇರುವ ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ2ರುತjೆ, ಆಥ_ಾ
6. Hೕವ ಅಪ ಾಧದ @ಾpqವನು9 ಇಲದಂVೆ ,ಾಡುವ ದನು9 ಆಥ_ಾ =ಾವ jೇ fkಾನದ0
ಅಂಥ @ಾpqವನು9 ಅಕTಮ_ಾ hದುIವ ದನು9 ತ<ೆಯಲು ಅಥ_ಾ,
7. Hೕವ ಪTಕರಣದ ಸಂಗhಯನು9 hK2ರುವ @ಾYjಾರ 5ೆ ಆ ಸಂಗತಗಳನು9 ಾ =ಾಲಯ;ೆ /
0ೕ+ ಅƒ;ಾ ಗK5ೆ hKಸದಂVೆ ಆತH5ೆ mೆTೕ ೇ8ಸುವ ದನು9, sೆದ ;ೆ Sಾಕುವ ದನು9
ಅಥ_ಾ ಆತH5ೆ _ಾ5ಾIನ ,ಾಡುವ ದನು9 ತ<ೆಯಲು ಅಥ_ಾ,
8. Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾಡ2ದI Sೊರತು ಅಗತ fರು_ಾಗ ೆ ಾ, Hಮ[ನು9 ಾ =ಾಲಯದ0
Sಾಜರುಪ-ಸಲು @ಾಧ _ಾಗjೇ ಇರುವ ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ2ರುತjೆ.
;ಾರಣ ಈ 2ನ 2 ಾಂಕ:-25-05-2025 ರಂದು 17.00 ಗಂ4ೆಯ0 ನ. ಾ.ಪ ರ /0ೕ+
ಾ!ೆಯ0 ಸ.ಳದ0 @ಾYjಾರ ಾದ 1)Dಹಮ[\ ಅ0 ಮತು 2)ಮHೕb ಕು,ಾX ಇವರುಗಳ
ಸಮpಮದ0 Hಮ[ ೕ ೆ SೇKದ ;ಾರಣಗಳನು9 ಮತು ಅಪ ಾƒಕ ಕೃತ ಗಳನು9 hKP ದಸ
,ಾಡ ಾ jೆ. Hಮ[ನು9 ದಸ ,ಾ-ದ ಬ5ೆE Hೕವ ಸೂ Pದ ಸಂಬಂƒಕ ಾದ Hಮ[ ತಂjೆ
@ೋಮAೇಖರಪC ರವ 5ೆ /ೕ* ,ಾ- ದಸ ಆದ ಬ5ೆE hKPjೆ.
@ಾYಗಳ ಸr : 1. ಸr/-
2. ಸr/-
ಸr/-
ತH%ಾƒ;ಾ ಯ ಸr ಮತು ¹Ãಲು
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
N. R. Pura Police Station,
Chikmagalur Dist.
Karnataaka State-577134
zÀ¸ÀÛVjAiÀiÁzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®Ä ¸À», ಸr/-"
The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet inter alia for
offence of murder against the petitioner. The petitioner applies for
regular bail on the police filing the charge sheet. The bail comes to
be rejected by a detailed order holding that the charge sheet would
demonstrate that all the accused are part of a criminal conspiracy
to murder the husband of accused No.1. Both the grounds that are
now set out before this Court were taken before the concerned
Court while seeking the petitioner to be set at liberty. The first
attempt fails before the Court of Session in S.C.No.113 of 2025 and
the petitioner now attempts to make a second attempt on the same
grounds before this Court.
8. The petitioner, in terms of the arrest panchanama, was
officially arrested at 5.00 p.m. on 25-05-2025 and produced before
the learned Magistrate on the next day at 5.25 p.m. The petitioner
was picked up from the bus stop at 3.30 p.m. on 25.05.2025, taken
to the Police Station first to draw up an arrest panchanama and
then owing to certain confusion as to the in-charge Court for the
said day to produce the petitioner, he was produced before the
in-charge learned Magistrate at 5.25 p m. on 26.05.2025. The
delay, if official arrest is taken note of, it is 25 minutes and if the
plea of the petitioner is taken note of, the moment he was picked
up from the bus stop, it is one hour and fifty-five minutes. It,
therefore, becomes necessary to notice the provisions and the
judicial landscape interpreting these provisions. Article 22(2) of the
Constitution reads as follows:
"22. Protection against arrest and detention in
certain cases.--(1) ... ... ...
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in
custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate
within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest
excluding the time necessary for the journey from the
place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such
person shall be detained in custody beyond the said
period without the authority of a magistrate."
Section 57 of the Cr.P.C., which is now Section 58 of BNSS reads as
follows:
"58. Person arrested not to be detained more than
twenty-four hours. No police officer shall detain in
custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer
period than under all the circumstances of the case is
reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a
special order of a Magistrate under section 187, exceed
twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the
journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court,
whether having jurisdiction or not."
Article 22(2) mandates that a detenu or the person who is taken
into custody must be produced before the Magistrate within 24
hours. Section 58 of the BNSS also mandates the same.
9. Whether the journey of travel to produce the detenu before
the concerned Court should be excluded or otherwise is borne
consideration by the Apex Court and different High Courts.
9.1. The Apex Court in GOURI SHANKAR JHA v. STATE OF
BIHAR1, holds as follows:
".... .... ....
11. The last contention of Mr Ghose was, firstly, that the
remand orders passed by the Magistrate were under Section
167 and not Section 344, as the latter section did not apply at
that stage, and secondly, that even if Section 344 applied, the
Magistrate could not order detention for more than fifteen days
in the whole. Section 167 appears in Chapter XIV which deals
with information and investigation. As its language shows, it
deals with the stage when a person is arrested by the police on
information that an offence has been committed. In providing
that such a person must, in terms of Section 61, be
produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours after his
arrest, the section reveals the policy of the legislature
that such a person should be brought before a Magistrate
with as little delay as possible. The object of the section
is two-fold, one that the law does not favour detention in
police custody except in special cases and that also for
reason to be stated by the Magistrate in writing, and
secondly, to enable such a person to make a
(1972) 1 SCC 564
representation before a Magistrate. In cases falling under
Section 167, a Magistrate undoubtedly can order custody for a
period at the most of fifteen days in the whole and such custody
can be either police or jail custody. Section 344, on the other
hand, appears in Chapter XXIV which deal with inquiries and
trials. Further, the custody which it speaks of is not such
custody as the Magistrate thinks fit as in Section 167, but only
jail custody, the object being that once an inquiry or a trial
begins it is not proper to let the accused remain under police
influence. Under this section, a Magistrate can remand an
accused person to custody for a term not exceeding fifteen days
at a time provided that sufficient evidence has been collected to
raise a suspicion that such an accused person may have
committed an offence and it appears likely that further evidence
may be obtained by granting a remand."
The Apex Court holds that the object of producing the arrestee
within 24 hours would necessarily mean that the accused should be
produced before the Magistrate with as little delay as possible.
9.2. The Apex Court again in KHATRI (2) v. STATE OF
BIHAR2, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
7. There are two other irregularities appearing from the
record to which we think it is necessary to refer. In the first
place in a few cases the accused persons do not appear to
have been produced before the Judicial Magistrates within 24
hours of their arrest as required by Article 22 of the
Constitution. We do not wish to express any definite opinion in
regard to this irregularity which prima facie appears to have
occurred in a few cases, but we would strongly urge upon
the State and its police authorities to see that this
(1981) 1 SCC 627
constitutional and legal requirement to produce an
arrested person before a Judicial Magistrate within 24
hours of the arrest must be scrupulously observed. It is
also clear from the particulars furnished to us from the records
of the Judicial Magistrates that in some cases particularly
those relating to Patel Sahu, Raman Bind, Shaligram Singh
and a few others the accused persons were not produced
before the Judicial Magistrate subsequent to their first
production and they continued to remain in jail without any
remand orders being passed by the Judicial Magistrates. This
was plainly contrary to law. It is difficult to understand how
the State continued to detain these accused persons in jail
without any remand orders. We hope and trust that the State
Government will inquire as to why this irregularity was allowed
to be perpetrated and will see to it that in future no such
violations of the law are permitted to be committed by the
administrators of the law. The provision inhibiting
detention without remand is a very healthy provision
which enables the Magistrates to keep check over the
police investigation and it is necessary that the
Magistrates should try to enforce this requirement and
where it is found to be disobeyed, come down heavily
upon the police."
9.3. The Apex Court in MANOJ v. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH3 , has held as follows:
".... .... ....
12. If the police officer is forbidden from keeping an
arrested person beyond twenty-four hours without order of a
Magistrate, what should happen to the arrested person after the
said period? It is a constitutional mandate that no person
shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with
the procedure established in law. Close to its heels the
Constitution directs that the person arrested and
detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest
(1999) 3 SCC 715
Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest. The only time
permitted by Article 22 of the Constitution to be excluded
from the said period of 24 hours is "the time necessary
for going from the place of arrest to the court of the
Magistrate". Only under two contingencies can the said
direction be obviated. One is when the person arrested is an
"enemy alien". Second is when the arrest is under any law for
preventive detention. In all other cases the Constitution has
prohibited peremptorily that "no such person shall be detained
in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a
Magistrate"."
The Apex Court holds that accused cannot be detained for more
than 24 hours in terms of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.
However, the time necessary for going from the place of arrest to
the Court of Magistrate is to be excluded from the said period of 24
hours.
9.4. The Apex Court later in ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF
BIHAR4, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
8. An accused arrested without warrant by the
police has the constitutional right under Article 22(2)
of the Constitution of India and Section 57 CrPC to be
produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary
delay and in no circumstances beyond 24 hours
excluding the time necessary for the journey:
(2014) 8 SCC 273
8.1. During the course of investigation of a case, an
accused can be kept in detention beyond a period of 24 hours
only when it is authorised by the Magistrate in exercise of
power under Section 167 CrPC. The power to authorise
detention is a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and
freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care
and caution. Our experience tells us that it is not exercised
with the seriousness it deserves. In many of the cases,
detention is authorised in a routine, casual and cavalier
manner."
The Apex Court holds that an accused arrested without warrant has
a right to be produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary
delay and in no circumstance beyond 24 hours, excluding the time
necessary for travel to reach the Magistrate.
9.5. A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in ANIL
JAISINGHANI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA5, holds as follows:
".... .... ....
12. A bare perusal of relevant paragraph of the said
Press-Note dated 20th March, 2023 indicates that, it nowhere
mentions that the Petitioners were arrested at about 11.45 p.m.
of 19th March, 2023 at Godhra, Gujarat. From the aforesaid
factual matrix, it is apparent that, the Petitioners and in
particular Petitioner No. 1 was detained in the wee hours
between 19th March, 2023 and 20th March, 2023. As per the
record, the Petitioner No. 1 was located and accordingly
detained at Vejalpur near Bedia Naka within the
jurisdiction of Vejalpur Police Station, State of Gujarat at
2023 SCC OnLine Bom. 752
about 2.25 am. of 20th March, 2023 and therefore according
to us, there is no substance in the contention of the learned
Senior counsel for the Petitioners that, the Petitioners were
arrested on 19th March, 2023. In the Order dated 21st March,
2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge on the Remand
Report, it is observed that, accused were arrested on
20th March, 2023 at 5.00 p.m. after his proper
identification as he was absconding in other cases. Except
electronic news nothing is on record to show that accused were
arrested on 19th March, 2023 at 11.45 p.m. The reasons
putforth by Investigating Officer are satisfactory and therefore
arrest cannot be said to be illegal. We have perused the
Remand Report dated 21st March, 2023, wherein it is
stated that, accused were arrested on 20th March, 2023 at
17.00 hrs. Arrest/search panchanama was recorded and
reasons for arrest were informed to the accused. The guidelines
issued by Supreme Court were followed at the time of their
arrest. The information about arrest of accused was given to
relative and acquaintance of accused.
13. Article 22(2) of Constitution of India states
that, every person who is arrested and detained in
custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate
within a period of 24 hours of such arrest excluding the
time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to
the court of the magistrate. Whereas Section 57 of the Cr.
P.C. provides that, no police officer shall detain in custody
a person arrested without warrant for a longer period
than under all the circumstances of the case is
reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a
special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed
twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the
journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court.
14. As noted above, the Petitioners were produced before
the Court of competent jurisdiction within a period of 24 hours
from the time of their arrest. Assuming for the sake of
argument, they were detained at Vejalpur on 20th March,
2023 at about 2.25 a.m. after excluding the period of
travel required for the said place to Mumbai, the
Petitioners were thereafter produced before the
concerned Court of competent jurisdiction within the
stipulated period. According to us, in the present case there is
no breach of Article 22(2) of Constitution of India and/or
Section 57 of the Cr. P.C. is committed by the Respondent-
State."
The Division Bench holds that 24 hours is calculated from the time
of arrest and the time taken to travel to reach the Magistrate can
be excluded from the period of 24 hours.
9.6. Again, the High court of Bombay in ANUJ ALIAS BABU
MALHARI CHAVAN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA6, has held
as follows:
".... .... ....
13. The first document which indicates about the
custody of the accused is entry No. 12, which is taken at
3.13 pm on 9th February 2025. This entry shows that he was
referred for medical examination before his arrest. This is,
therefore, prima facie an authentic document which
reveal that at 3.13 pm, he was in custody. There are
entries in the general diary which indicate that the accused
was required to be sent from Bhor Police custody to Jejuri
Police custody. The accused was produced before the
Special Judge at Pune on 10th February 2025 at 5.15
pm. There cannot be dispute with regard to the
position of law that the travel time required for
production of the accused before the Magistrate needs
to be excluded from the computation of 24 hours. Here
in this case, the accused is sought to be produced
before the Special Judge from Jejuri to Pune. There is
Criminal Appeal No.764 of 2025 disposed of on 17-12-2025
no dispute with regard to the fact that the travel time
between these two places is more than two hours.
Having regard to this fact, it cannot be said that the
accused was not produced within 24 hours of his
arrest before the Special Judge.
14. Once it is held that he is produced within 24
hours of his arrest excluding the period of travel, it
cannot be said that the fundamental rights of the
accused guaranteed under Article 22(2) of the
Constitution of India as well as Section 57 of the Cr.PC
are flouted in any manner. Thus, it cannot be held that
the accused has been detained in illegal custody in
order to release him on bail. This Court, therefore, finds
no merit in the present appeal. Since the appellant has
chosen not to seek bail on merit of the case, this Court does
not wish to record any findings in that regard."
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-
quoted judgments and that of the Bombay High Court, what would
unmistakably emerge is that the delay of 25 minutes in producing
the petitioner before the learned Magistrate is not fatal in the case
at hand, as it is adequately explained by the prosecution.
10. Therefore, non-production of the accused within the
mandatory time in certain circumstances would not vitiate the
proceedings. Illustrations galore in terms of what is quoted
hereinabove. Therefore, the petitioner is officially arrested in terms
of the arrest panchanama at 5.00 p.m on 25-05-2025 and is
produced before the learned Magistrate the next day at 5.25 p.m.
In the peculiar facts of this case, the delay is explained and the
explanation is acceptable, as it is the travel time or the obfuscation
with regard to the Court before whom the petitioner was to be
produced.
11. The petitioner has produced google map to show the
distance between the bus stop where he was apprehended to the
Police Station as 56 minutes and from the Police Station to the
Court of the Magistrate being only 2 minutes.. These submissions
are made before the Court, and the Court of Session analysing the
entire documents and the google map has declined to accept the
plea of the petitioner and rejected the regular bail by order dated
11-12-2025. There is no warrant to have a re-look to what the
Court of Session has held, particularly in a petition under Section
528 of the BNSS.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petition,
the petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, pending I.A.No.1 of 2026 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:SS
