Criminal Petition No. 1872 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12305 CRL.P No. 1872 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1872 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SWETHA GOWDA D/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT WOW PIZZA BILDING BONEMILL MIAN ROAD SEDEDA HALLI BENGALURU - 560 073. (BY SRI MANJUNATH B.R, ADV.) AND: STATE BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRIK.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP A/W SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP) Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.NO.179/2024 OF COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 318(4) OF RESPONDENT POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 10TH ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL AT BANGALORE AND DIRECT THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER OR ANY OTHER OFFICER, WHO IS INVESTIGATING IN THIS MATTER TO RELEASE HER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12305 CRL.P No. 1872 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused in Crime No.179/2024 registered by Commercial Street Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023, is before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.179/2024 was registered by Commercial Street Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 18.12.2024 received from R.Balaraj Shet S/o S.Ram Shet. Apprehending arrest in the said case, petitioner had filed Crl. Misc. No.25018/2025 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected on 21.01.2025. Therefore, she is before this Court. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a lady and she was taken into custody on 14.12.2024 in Crime No.174/2024 registered by the very same police station on similar allegations. Though body warrant was issued against the petitioner in this case, petitioner was deliberately not - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12305 CRL.P No. 1872 of 2025 produced by the police officer till date. He submits that petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP has opposed the petition. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender and in view of the allegations found in the first information, her custodial interrogation is required. The gold jewellery which is the subject matter of this case is yet to be recovered. She submits that body warrant against the petitioner in this case could not be executed for administrative reasons since the entire case is now transferred to Cubbon Park Police Station on the ground of jurisdiction. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the material made available to the Court would go to show that the petitioner is a habitual offender and FIR in Crime No.326/2022 was registered against her by Yelahanka Police Station with similar allegations. In the said case, it appears that she was arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail. Subsequently, she was arrested on 14.12.2024 in Crime No.174/2024 registered by Commercial Street Police Station. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12305 CRL.P No. 1872 of 2025 Investigation of the case in Crime No.174/2024 was completed and charge sheet has been already filed in the said case and petitioner has been ordered to be enlarged on bail in the said case by this Court by a even dated order passed in Crl.P.No.1877/2025. 7. In the present case, the order sheet of the learned Magistrate would go to show that a requisition was submitted by the Investigation Officer before the learned Magistrate on 15.01.2025, seeking body warrant against the petitioner and considering the same, the learned Magistrate on the very same date had issued body warrant against the petitioner returnable by 21.03.2025. 8. The power of a criminal court to secure the presence of an accused who is in custody in some other case can be traced to Section 302 of BNSS, 2023, which is parimateria to Section 167 of Cr.PC. Section 305 of BNSS, 2023, which is parimateria to Section 270 of Cr.PC, provides that pursuant to an order passed under Section 302 of BNSS, 2023, the officer in charge of the prison, shall cause the person named in the order to be taken to the Court in which his attendance is required, so as to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12305 CRL.P No. 1872 of 2025 be present there at the time mentioned in the order, and shall cause him to be kept in custody in or near the court until he has been examined or until the court authorizes him to be taken back to the prison in which he was confined or detained. The order passed under Section 302 of BNSS, 2023, cannot be considered as an arrest warrant and by virtue of the said order, a person cannot be detained in custody. 9. Body warrant is issued in a case where accused in the said case is arrested and is in custody in another criminal case. In the event, accused is enlarged on bail in the case in which he/she was arrested, then the body warrant issued would be rendered infructuous. It is trite that merely for the reason that the court has issued body warrant against an accused, the said accused cannot be kept in custody. When such being the position, the courts are required to be conscious of the fact that body warrant issued by the court could be rendered infructuous in the event the accused who is in custody in another case as against whom body warrant is sought is released from custody. Therefore, the courts are required to give the shortest possible date for return of the body warrant. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12305 CRL.P No. 1872 of 2025 10. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate who has issued body warrant against the petitioner, has ordered return of the said body warrant by 21.03.2025, which is after a period of more than two months. If such a long date is given after body warrant is issued by the court, there are all possibilities that the accused who is in custody in another case may be released on bail and in such an event, the body warrant issued by the court would be rendered infructuous. 11. It is also noticed that subsequent to the issuance of body warrant on 15.01.2025, on the request of the Investigation Officer, the case was directed to be transferred to Cubbon Park Police Station on the point of jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate on 25.02.2025. However, till date, the case has not been transferred to Cubbon Park Police Station and no fresh FIR has been registered by Cubbon Park Police Station. The Investigation Officer who was directed to produce the petitioner under body warrant before the court on 21.03.2025, has failed to produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, and therefore, the learned Magistrate has now re-issued body warrant against the petitioner returnable by 31.05.2025, which is again after a period of more than two months. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12305 CRL.P No. 1872 of 2025 12. Learned HCGP, who was directed to submit explanation as to why petitioner was not produced under body warrant before the learned Magistrate on 21.03.2025, on instructions from the Investigation Officer, submits that since the case is directed to be transferred to Cubbon Park Police Station, the petitioner was not produced under body warrant before the learned Magistrate. 13. It is not in dispute that till date the case has not been transferred to Cubbon Park Police Station and no fresh FIR has bee registered in the present case. Body warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate on the requisition of the Investigation Officer of Commercial Street Police Station, and he was, therefore, duty bound to comply the said order and produce the accused/petitioner herein under body warrant before the learned Magistrate. Pursuant to the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate, body warrant in Form No.36 has been already issued by the registry and the copy of the same is also made available to this Court. Therefore, the explanation offered by the Investigation Officer of Commercial Street Police Station for non-production of petitioner under - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12305 CRL.P No. 1872 of 2025 body warrant before the learned Magistrate cannot be accepted. 14. This Court has been noticing that inspite of body warrants being issued against the accused who are in custody in some other criminal cases, the said accused are not produced before the court by the concerned Investigation Officers, and as a result, if the said accused are released on bail in the case in which they were arrested, securing their presence becomes difficult to the Investigation Officer and the investigation of the case gets prolonged or derailed. Such eventuality can be avoided, provided the police officers are diligent in producing the accused before the court under body warrant. The chances of deliberate inaction by the police officers also cannot be completely ruled out and if that is so, such officers are required to be dealt with iron hands. 15. Whenever it comes to the notice of the higher officers that in a given case, the accused was not produced under body warrant inspite of the concerned court issuing body warrant against the accused, and even before such a body warrant could be executed, the accused in custody was released on bail, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12305 CRL.P No. 1872 of 2025 then necessary explanation is required to be sought from the concerned officers, and in the event, the explanation offered is not satisfactory, the same shall be followed by necessary disciplinary action. 16. On the merits of the case, it is found that petitioner is an habitual offender and she was arrested in two other criminal cases registered by two different police stations of Bengaluru with similar allegations. In the present case, there is an allegation that petitioner has taken gold jewellery weighing about 285 grams worth Rs.20,75,000/- from the first informant and it is also alleged that the cheque issued towards part payment of the aforesaid amount was dishonoured. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Addl. SPP, petitioner's custodial interrogation may be required for the purpose of recovering the gold jewellery of the first informant and also to find out involvement of other accused persons in the present case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner's prayer for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12305 CRL.P No. 1872 of 2025 17. The Registrar General is directed to take necessary action to circulate the copy of this order to all the Principal District & Sessions Judges and also to the Director General & Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State, for taking appropriate follow up action. KK Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE