Criminal Petition No. 5810 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17835 CRL.P No. 5810 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5810 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / BETWEEN: 528(BNSS)) 1. EMMANUEL ARINZE IDOKO @ EMMANUEL S/O. IDOKO @ EDWARD, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.04, OPP. TO KMF DAIRY ROAD BDA LAYOUT, AANTHAPURA, RAMAGODANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064 NATIVE ADDRESS OGRUTE VILLAGE, ENUGU CITY, NIGERIA
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GOVINDAPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. MR. MANJUNATHASWAMY B.C. FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MAJOR IN AGE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR GOVINDAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY - 560 045. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17835 CRL.P No. 5810 of 2025 3. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGARAHARA BENGALURU-560 100 (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R1 & R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE ORDER OF ARREST DATED 26.02.2024 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE AND ORDER OF REMAND DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MMTC, TRAFFIC COURT-I, BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.69/2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 8(c) AND 22(c) OF NDPS ACT AND NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES, AT BENGALURU (CCH-33) AND SET AT LIBERTY FORTHWITH AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner who was arrested on 26.2.2024 in Crime No.69/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(C) of NDPS is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the grounds of arrest was not disclosed and served on him at the time of the arrest and therefore the same stands vitiated for non-compliance provision of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India and under Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17835 CRL.P No. 5810 of 2025 4. In response, the learned High Court Government Pleader, for the respondent-State has placed on record the grounds of arrest alleged to have been served on the petitioner at the time of the arrest. 5. Perusal of the grounds of arrest indicated except the mentioning of the offence alleged against the petitioner and the quantity of MDMA drug seized from the petitioner, grounds of arrest are not disclosed warranting arrest of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner was produced before the Jurisdictional learned Magistrate on 27.02.2024 and the order sheet indicated that except producing remand application, FIR , Complaint, arrest memo and arrest notice, the grounds of arrest allegedly served on the petitioner was not produced before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate remanding the petitioner to judicial custody is without application of mind and same stands vitiated for the said reasons. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar -vs- State of Haryana & anr. - in 2025 INSC 162, following the earlier decision has held that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of fundamental rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. if the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, if - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17835 CRL.P No. 5810 of 2025 would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 8. In the light of the foregoing, the arrest of the petitioner is held to be illegal and without authority of law for non-compliance of Section 52(1) of NDPS Act and of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner has established a prima facie case to release him from judicial custody forthwith. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The 3rd respondent, Superintendent of Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, is hereby directed to release the petitioner-accused forthwith in Crime No.69/2024, registered by the Govindarajapura Police Station, for the aforesaid offences subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner-accused shall furnish cash surety for as sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of his release; ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; iii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17835 CRL.P No. 5810 of 2025 iv) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future; v) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits without prior permission of the Investigating Officer. vi) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Concerned Investigating Officer on every fortnight vii) The concerned Jail Authorities are hereby directed to release the petitioner forthwith without any delay and immediately upon a receipt of copy of this order, if he is not required for any other cases, if any. viii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Jail Authorities concerned forthwith without any delay through e-mail and telephonically. ix) In the event, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned above, the cash surety furnished shall be forfeited with the respondent-State. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10