1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10

TH

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 BN S

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 Sectio n

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 c harge

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 th e

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 b een

arrested for investigation. In answer to 11 guidelines ,

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

has been intimated to the accused. The petitioner is aware

of the grounds on which he has been arrested. Theref ore,

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 t he

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 cas e

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 o n

record.

6

5. The case of the prosecution as per the charge shee t

is that accused No.1 was working under deceased –

Lakkappa. At that time, he had committed theft of c opra

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 t hat

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 tim e,

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, th ey

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

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

intimated regarding the said aspect. Therefore, dece ased

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 wit h

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 dea th is

8

hemorrhagic shock due to penetrating injury to lung an d

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, t he

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. S tate

(2024) 3 SCC 51, Prabir Purkayastha (supra), Vihan Kuma r

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 th e

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

non-complying Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 (Section

50 of Cr.P.C.).

iv) Send a copy of this order by e-mail to the

Superintendent of Police, Hassan with a copy to

CPI, Arsikere Rural Circle, Arsikere.

16

v) Send the records to Trial Court with copy of this

order forthwith.

Sd/-

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)

JUDGE

DKB