Procedural lapses in communicating grounds of arrest do not automatically render custody illegal unless they cause demonstrable prejudice, emphasizing compliance with Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.

ORDER :

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.

1. This petition is filed by accused No. 2 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ` BNS S ’) praying to grant bail in crime No. 63/2025 of Gulpete Police Station, Kolar, registered for offence punishable under Sections 61 , 103, 115(2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ` ’).

2. Heard learned Senior counsel for petitioner – accused No. 2 and learned HCGP for respondent – State.

3. Learned Senior counsel for petitioner – accused No. 2 would contend that the grounds of arrest are not furnished to the accused. Only information of arrest has been given to the relatives. Furnishing of grounds of arrest is mandatory in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269 and in the case of Ahmed Mansoor and Ors. Vs. The State, Rep. By, Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr., Crl.A. No. 4505/2025 dated 14.10.2025. Petitioner – accused No. 2 also had sustained injury and it was stated to be grievous injury and that itself indicates that the deceased was also carrying weapon. Injuries of petitioner – accused have not been explained by the Investigating Officer. Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by petitioner – accused No. 2 creates a doubt regarding the case of the prosecution. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1976 (4) SCC 394 . The deceased gave provocation to the accused persons when the accused asked him to leave his illicit relationship with accused No. 4. Petitioner is a Five year Law student studying in X Semester. As petitioner sustained injury and is a student, he is entitled for grant of bail and on that point he placed reliance on a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Raja Gautam Buddha Vs. State of Karnataka , Crl.P. No. 1348/2012 dated 22.03.2012 There is no recovery at the instance of this petitioner except the clothes which are stated to be blood stained. Said blood stains on the clothes of petitioner – accused No. 2 are due to the injury sustained by him. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and grant bail to petitioner – accused No. 2.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the offence alleged against petitioner – accused No. 2 is heinous offence punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. P.M. report would indicate that the deceased had sustained 42 injuries. C.W.2 is the only eye witness to the incident and she is the relative of accused persons. If the petitioner is granted bail there is threat to C.W.2 – eye witness and other prosecution witnesses. The injuries sustained by petitioner – accused No. 2 have been explained in the charge sheet. Petitioner – accused No. 2 himself has stated how he sustained injuries in his voluntary statement. Petitioner – accused No. 2 and other accused conspired to kill the deceased and they came to the spot with deadly weapons. Merely because petitioner – accused No. 2 is a student is not a ground for grant of bail. Petitioner – accused No. 2 has already completed his X semester as he was studying in V year Law course for the academic year 2024-25. Said academic year is already completed. On these grounds he prayed for rejection of the petition.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the materials placed on record.

6. As learned Senior counsel has argued that grounds of arrest have not been furnished, in orde