'Violates Article 21': Karnataka High Court Orders Release Of Theft Accused Jailed For 3 Years Despite Bail For Want Of Surety
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (February 23) ordered the release of a man accused of theft, who despite being granted bail was languishing in jail as he could not furnish the surety as directed by the trial court. On Saturday, the court had questioned the prison authority for not producing him before the concerned court even once while being in judicial custody for four years, after...
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (February 23) ordered the release of a man accused of theft, who despite being granted bail was languishing in jail as he could not furnish the surety as directed by the trial court.
On Saturday, the court had questioned the prison authority for not producing him before the concerned court even once while being in judicial custody for four years, after noting that on 20 dates the matter was adjourned for lack of appearance.
The petitioner had moved the high court seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 380 (theft) IPC on the ground that he had been kept in custody illegally and that a Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued to him even though he was in judicial custody. The court had while calling for a report on steps taken to prevent repetition of such an anomaly, listed the matter to consider petitioner's plea for release from prison.
Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order dictated:
"The case at hand projected several aberrations. Owing to such aberrations this court had passed the following order on 21-2-2026 and directed the matter to be listed today for consideration of plea of the release of the petitioner.
The petitioner has been in custody for the last three years despite grant of bail on the score that he is unable to provide sureties for the purpose of his release. The very act of him being in prison despite grant of bail, only for the reason that of not providing sureties would be violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India. The Apex Court considers this issue and holds that demand of surety or non providing or sureties should not result in the accused despite getting bail languishing in prison. Once the person has been set to liberty it should run for all time except in accordance with law it being taken away. Therefore in the light of said circumstances, the want of surety is dispensed with. The petitioner shall execute personal bond and will be released from prison if he is not wanted in any other crime".
The court thereafter listed the matter on March 6 on which date it shall consider the larger issue.
Case title: IMRAN @ KULLA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA
CRL.P 529/2026