IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6265 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. MANOJ D R @ MANOJA D R S/O RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/A JAVAREGOWDA NAGARA PRESENT HOSAKERALLI, KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY (AS PER CHARGESHEET)

MANOJ, D.R S/O RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS NO. 52 1ST CROSS, Digitally signed by JAVAREGOWDANA DODDI R HEMALATHA RR NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH Location: H igh BANGALORE KARNATAKA-560098 Court of Karnataka (AS PER ADHAR CARD)

(JUDICIAL COUSTODY)

2. KIRANA MA S/O ANNAIAH SWAMY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS BAPUJI NAGARA MORI ROAD NEAR BEERESHWARA TEMPLE, BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA (AS PER CHARGE SHEET)

KIRANA M A S/O ANNAYYA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK SANTHE BACHANAHALLI HOBLI MAVINAKATTE KOPPALU MALAGUR, MANDYA KARNATAKA 571436 (AS PER ADHAR CARD)

(AS PER CHARGE SHEET) 3. KOUSHIK S @ KADU S/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS VEERABHADRA SIGNAL, GIRI NAGARA, BENGALURU BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA (AS PER CHARGESHEET)

KOWSHIK S AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O SHRINIVASA, TOLALI MULUKATTE, NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA, KARNATAKA-571432 (AS PER ADHAR CARD) (JUDICIAL COUSTODY)

4. RAJA BABU @ RAJU S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS NO 368 2ND MAIN ROAD CHALAGHATA, KENGERI, BENGALURU BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA RAJABABU A AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O ANJINAPPA NO 368 2ND BEEDI, KENGERI HOBALI CHALAGHATTA, KUMBALAGODU BANGALORE SOUTH, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560060 (AS PER ADHAR CARD) (JUDICIAL COUSTODY)

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UTSAV GOWDA P. S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA KADUR POLICE REP BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE -560001.

2. CHIEF SUPRITENDANDENT DISTRICT PRISON CHIKMAGALUR-577101 (BOTH ARE REP BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE -560001)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS)

CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ARREST DATED 16.02.2024 AND REMAND ORDER DATED 17.02.2024 PASSED IN CR.NO.34/2024 ON THE FILE NO. S.C.NO.59/2024 PENDING BEFORE HONBLE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 302,201,120-B R/W SEC.34 OF IPC SET ASIDE THE ORDER REMANDING THE PETITIONER TO JUDICIAL CUSTODY RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 4), who were arrested on 16.2.2024 in Crime No.34/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC are before this Court seeking relief.

2. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the grounds of arrest were not served at the time of arrest, and therefore, the same is in violation of Article

22(1) of Constitution of India.

3. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent on instructions submitted that grounds of arrest were not served on the petitioner. The said submission is placed on record.

4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar -vs- The State of Haryana & Another, reported in (2025) 2 SCR 424 has reiterated that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a mere 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 - who is 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, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee as guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty, to effectively challenge the arrest. Article 21 of the Constitution states that no person can be deprived of his liberty, except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

5. In the light of the deci