Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Murder Accused Over Non-Supply Of Grounds Of Arrest As Per Mihir Rajesh Shah Judgment
The Karnataka High Court granted bail to a man accused of murder after noting that grounds of arrest had not been furnished to him by the investigating officer who had produced the accused before the magistrate
The court was hearing a plea by accused No.2 seeking bail booked for offences punishable under Section 103(1)(murder), 115(2)(voluntarily causing hurt), 118(1)(voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 351(2)(criminal intimidation, 351(3) read with 3(5) (common intention) of BNS.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavaar referred to Supreme Court's decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v/s State of Maharashtra (2025) and said:
"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".
For context, the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah has held that the failure to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee, in the language he/she understands, would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
The Apex court had held, "...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".
It was the prosecution's case that the accused No.1 was working under deceased; after he was caught committing theft the deceased had removed him from the job. It was alleged that the accused felt that he has been insulted and told the deceased that he will show his another face. On 04.04.2025 at about 11.30 p.m. when certain eye-witnesses–CWs.2 to 6–were playing chowkabara i.e. cross-and-circle board ludo game in front of house of one Basavanna, the accused No.1 came there and told the eye witnesses that they were "gambling" and that he will call the police and lodge a case against them.
The eye witnesses informed the deceased about this incident and they all went near the house of accused No.1 and asked him why he was making false statements. At that time, accused No.2 who was present with accused No.1, quarrelled with deceased and assaulted him.
It was alleged that accused No.2 went inside the house of accused No.1, brought a knife and assaulted the deceased on his ribs on the left side. It was also alleged that thereafter accused No.1 snatched the knife from accused No.2 and assaulted with the deceased on the left side of his chest. When two of the eyewitnesses went to rescue the deceased, the accused No.1 assaulted them causing injuries.
The counsel for the petitioner said that 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. It was argued that the grounds of arrest have not been furnished to the petitioner prior to he being produced before the Judicial Magistrate. It was argued that 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.
It was argued that there is a significant difference between the reasons for arrest and grounds of arrest and that grounds of arrest would invariably be personal to the accused thus cannot be equated with the reasons of arrest which are general in nature.
Meanwhile the State argued that the arrest intimation has been given to the petitioner's sister wherein it was mentioned that he has been arrested for investigation. It was argued that the petitioner was aware of the grounds on which he has been arrested and hence there was no violation.
The high court set the petitioner at liberty; it however said that the prosecution may move an application for remand/custody after supply of grounds of arrest in writing to the petitioner before the trial Court.
It further observed that "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/Section 50 CrPC.
The plea was partly allowed.
Case title: NANJUNDA v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16200/2025