Reserved on : 20.02.2026 Pronounced on : 04.03.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.36302 OF 2025 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN:

SYED IBRAHIM THANGAL S/O SYED HASAN THANGAL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT BIJATHALI HOUSE KOILA POST, RAMAKUNDA VILLAGE VIA UPPINANGADI, KADABA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 211.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE BY MANGALORE NORTH P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 . PRADEEP T. R., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT PSI NORTH POLICE STATION MANGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA – 575 001.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ARREST MEMO AT ANNEXURE -E, REMAND ORDER DATED 10.10.2025 AT ANNEXURE -C, AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 113/2025 REGISTERED BY MANGALORE NORTH PS PENDING IN THE FILES OF IN THE COURT OF XLIX A.C.C AND S.J., BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE - D.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner, sole accused in Crime No.113 of 2025, now stands at the doors of this Court seeking to immediately set him at liberty, on account of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest.

2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

A suo motu complaint comes to be registered by the jurisdictional police which becomes a crime in Crime No.113 of

2025 for offences punishable under Sections 10(a)(i), 13 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. On 09-10-2025 the petitioner was taken into custody and a remand application was presented before the concerned Court and the petitioner is now in judicial custody since 09-10-2025. The sole score on which the petitioner is now before the Court is on the ground that a physical copy of the grounds of arrest was not furnished to him at the time of his arrest and the concerned Court directed that the physical copy shall be served at that time.

3. Heard Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel Sri Mohammed Tahir appearing for the petitioner would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that, for the first time before the concerned Court, a copy of the grounds of arrest is given to the petitioner, which was in violation of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of VIHAAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA, 1(2025) 5 SCC 799 as also in the case of MIHIR RAJESH SHAH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 22025 SCC OnLine SC 2356. He would submit that on this ground the petitioner may be set at liberty forthwith, failing which, the Constitutional right of the petitioner would be a mirage.

5. Per-contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submissions contending that grounds of arrest was indeed given to the petitioner and he has signed receiving the said grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest i.e., at 1.00 p.m. on 09-10-2025. He would submit that there is no violation of law as laid down by the Apex Court. Insofar as the judgment in the case of MIHIR RAJESH SHAH, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the said judgment cannot be pressed into service for arrests that have happened prior to MIHIR RAJESH SHAH. In all, he would submit that there is complete compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court and grounds of arrest is indeed furnished.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The issue now lies in a narrow compass. The compass revolves round furnishing of gr