Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1755
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUA
MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J
Avinash, S/o .Surendra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 893 OF 2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. VACHAN GOWDA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SMT. PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP A/W SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP
The right to statutory bail is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and courts must apply scrutiny before allowing serious charges to be invoked.
Headnote:(A) BNS Act, 2023 - Sections 318(4), 319(2), 111(3), 111(4) - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66
(D) - Regular bail application - Accused arrested without other criminal antecedents; no other accused arrested; chargesheet not filed within statutory period - Right to statutory bail under Section 187(3) of BNS Act infringed - Court must apply mind before allowing invocation of serious charges. (Paras 1, 7, 13, 15, 17)
(B) Statutory Bail - Right to statutory bail is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, not merely a statutory right. (Paras 13, 15)
Facts of the case:
The accused was arrested in connection with a case involving serious charges under BNS Act and IT Act. The FIR was registered against unknown persons, and the petitioner was the only accused arrested. The chargesheet was not filed within the statutory period.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the lack of evidence and the infringement of his right to statutory bail.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the lack of other arrests and the failure to file a chargesheet within the statutory period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to statutory bail is a fundamental right and emphasized the need for judicial scrutiny before allowing serious charges to be invoked.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail.
ORAL ORDER
Accused No.2 in Crime No.794/2024 registered by South East CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2) of BNS, 2023 and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'IT Act') is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS Act, 2023 seeking regular bail.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.794/2024 was registered by South East CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City against unknown persons for the aforesaid offences, on the basis of the first information dated 24.08.2024 received from Ms.Manthalir N, daughter of Keshav Singh K.
4. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was issued with the notice under Section 35(3) of BNS 2023 and in response to the said notice, petitioner had appeared before the police on 06.01.2025 and on the said date he was arrested and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.264/2025 was rejected on 20th January, 2025. Therefore, petitioner is before this court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. Except the petitioner, till date no other accused has been arrested in the present case. Inspite of that, the Investigation Officer has filed an application before the Trial Court seeking permission to invoke the offences punishable under Sections 111(3) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023 which was mechanically allowed by the Trial Judge without application of mind. He submits that since the chargesheet is not filed within period provided under the statute, petitioner is entitled for statutory bail. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition.
6. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. She submits that during the course of interrogation, statement of one Hazarat Ali Malhakatti was recorded and based on the same, enquiry notice was issued to the petitioner and on 06.01.2025 he has been arrested. She submits that further investigation of the case is under progress. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss this petition.
7. FIR in the present case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the IT Act and the alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the maximum punishment for the aforesaid offences is imprisonment for a period of 7 years. Undisputedly, petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and except the petitioner, till date no other accused has been arrested in the present case. In the remand application of the petitioner, it is stated that petitioner has admitted his guilt, and therefore, he was arrested. In the remand application, it is also stated that during the course of investigation one Hazarat Ali Malhakatti, to whose bank account amount was transferred was issued with a enquiry notice under Section 35(3) of BNS, 2023 and during the course of interrogation of the said Hazarat Ali Malhakatti on 21.11.2024, he had stated that he had asked his friend Avinash (petitioner) to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from his account using his ATM card and accordingly, Avinash had withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from his bank account using his ATM card. Except the aforesaid allegation, there is no other allegation as against the petitioner.
8. Section 187 of BNSS, 2023 provides for procedure when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours. Section 187 of BNSS, 2023 reads as follows:
" Section 187 . Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours.-(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 58, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is
