Karnataka High Court Questions Prison Authority For Not Producing Accused Even Once In 4 Yrs, Slams Police For Reporting Him 'Untraceable'

The Karnataka High Court on Saturday (February 21) orally questioned the prison authority for not producing a theft accused 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 appearance. 

The court also questioned the State after noting that a police constable entrusted with executing a non-bailable warrant against the accused had stated that the warrant could not be execute as the accused was not traceable despite him being in prison all along. 

The petitioner had moved the high court seeking of proceedings under Section 380 (theft) IPC on the ground that the petitioner has been illegally in custody and that a Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) to the accused even though he was is in judicial custody.

Expressing shock at the police's submission that the accused was not traceable therefore NBW could not be executed, the high court had on Friday summoned the Deputy Inspector General Prisons, as well as the concerned DCP today. 

During the hearing today, the Justice M Nagaprasanna orally said to the State,"A body warrant is pending. NBW is issued in the same crime; he (accused) is in prison. The police statement is that he is not found. How did policeman report that he is not found? Who is the man who gave such statement? Why should departmental inquiry not be initiated? Who is the person who gave such statement?"

When the court was informed that the policeman was a constable the court said:

"He is in prison for last four years, without being produced before concerned court even through video conferencing. What sought of callousness is this? Is the trial on or not? What do you if trial is on? 20 dates not once you have brought him outside. How long do you hold prisoners inside without producing them before court? Put your house in order...he may be accused unless convicted," the court orally remarked. 

The Advocate General said that all the steps taken will be presented before the court. 

The court thereafter in its order dictated:

"The NBW was sought to be executed by a police constable attached to HAL police station. The accused was in judicial custody but statement rendered by constable was entrusted with duty of executing of NBW is that accused is not found, while he was in prison. Therefore the police constable has sat in the chamber and drawn the statement that he has sought to execute the NBW. The learned AG submits on instructions that a departmental inquiry against the constable who had rendered a statement sitting in his chambers that he had sought to execute the NBW and accused was not found while he was in the prison, would be initiated and action taken would be placed before the court"

On the second issue the court said, "counsel for petitioner had submitted that for last four years not even once was accused brought before court even through video conferencing and on that score multiple adjournments were granted. DIG prisons undertakes before this court that appropriate steps will be taken...and will place a report before the court as to what steps they have taken to identify and not repeat the same anomaly in not bringing prisoners before the court and court adjourning the matter for appearance".

The court called for a report and listed the matter on March 6. 

Case title: IMRAN @ KULLA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P 529/2026