IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.16200/2025 BETWEEN : NANJUNDA S/O RAMESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT MARAVANJII VILLAGE YAGATI HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMANGALORE -45 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C, ADVOCATE)

AND :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY BANAVARA POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU–560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

439 OF CR.P.C (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SC No.155/2025(CRIME No.32/2025), PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 103(1), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 351(3) READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS BY BANAVARA POLICE.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.01.2026, THIS DAY, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CAV ORDER

This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section

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 Section 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 05.04.2025 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: (i) Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

(2024) 8 SCC 254 (ii) Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356)

On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the arrest intimation has been given to the sister of the petitioner and in that it is mentioned that he has been arrested for investigation. In answer to 11 guidelines, there is a mention at column No.5 that reason for arrest has been intimated to the accused. The petitioner is aware of the grounds on which he has been arrested. Therefore, there is no violation of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest. There is a serious overt act alleged against this petitioner of assaulting the deceased with knife on his ribs. There are nine eye witnesses i.e., CWs.1 to 9 who have seen the petitioner assaulting the deceased with knife on his ribs. Out of them, CWs.2 and 3 are injured and accused No.1 is stated to have assaulted them with knife on their back and hand. The charge sheet material show prima-facie case aga