NANJUNDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Sec. 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in S.C.No.155/2025 (Crime No.32/2025 of Banavara Police Station), pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, for the offence punishable under Sec. 103(1), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 351(3) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent / State.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a complaint has been filed by the wife of the deceased and she is the eye witness to the incident. CWs.1 to 9 are eye witnesses to the incident and out of them, CWs.2 and 3 are injured persons. The petitioner has been arrested on 5/4/2025 and he is in judicial custody. As the charge sheet is filed, petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. The grounds of arrest have not been furnished to the petitioner prior to he being produced before the Judicial Magistrate. 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. There is a significant difference between the reasons for arrest and grounds of arrest. The reasons for arrest as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters. The grounds of arrest would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the reasons of arrest which are general in nature. On that point, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ahmed Mansoor and others vs. State Rep. by Assistant Commissioner of Police (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2650). The learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions on the point that arrest is illegal if the grounds of arrest are not furnished to the accused: