SRI DHEERAJ vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53001
CRL.P No. 11880 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544862026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11880 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI DHEERAJ,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O LATE ASHOK SHARMA,
R/O NO.33, 4TH FLOOR,
7TH BLOCK, DAKSHNINIPURI,
AMBEDKARNAGAR,
SOUTH DISTRICT, DELHI-110062
PETITIONER CURRENTLY IN
JUDICIAL CUSTODY
UTP NO.4837/2026.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SOMANNA K P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY YESHWANTHPUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. SATHISH K,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
YESHWANTHPUR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560022
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B N JAGADEESHA, SPP-I)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53001
CRL.P No. 11880 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544862026
ASIDE THE ORDER OF POLICE REMAND DATED 24.06.2026
PASSED BY THE XXXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BENGALURU IN CRIME
NO.148/2026 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
YESHWANTHPURA POLICE STATION AND ALL CONSEQUENTLY
REMAND ORDERS PASSED THEREAFTER AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State.
2. This petition is filed to quash the order dated
24.06.2026 remanding the petitioner to the police custody. The
said order is passed in Crime No.148/2026 registered before
the Yeshwantpura Police.
3. The further prayer is that the action of the
respondent No.2 police in securing the petitioner's production
under body warrant dated 19.06.2026 be declared as unlawful
and unconstitutional.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53001
CRL.P No. 11880 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544862026
4. The third prayer is to enlarge the petitioner from
judicial custody in Crime No.148/2026 registered on
04.05.2026 by the first respondent-Yeshwantpura Police.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
taking through the facts of the case would submit that the
petitioner was initially arrested in Crime No.92/2026 on
11.05.2026. Said crime was registered in Hebbal Police Station
at Bengaluru. The offence alleged is under Section 22(c) of The
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act,
1985).
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
also submit that on 04.05.2026 FIR was registered in Crime
No.148/2026 before the Yeshwantapura Police for the offence
under Section 22(c) of the Act, 1985.
7. It is the contention that petitioner was arrested at
11:00 a.m. in Delhi and was produced before the Magistrate at
Delhi on 15.05.2026 at 07:00 p.m.
8. It is the further contention that, later petitioner was
in the custody of the police pursuant to the order passed by the
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53001
CRL.P No. 11880 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544862026
jurisdictional Magistrate in Crime No.92/2026. Since, one more
complaint was registered in Crime No.148/2026 against the
said petitioner, in the said crime the petitioner was arrayed as
accused No.4. In the FIR No.92/2026 petitioner was arrayed as
accused No.6.
9. In Crime No.148/2026 the respondent-Police moved
a requisition to the Magistrate to secure the custody of the
petitioner who was already in police custody in Crime
No.92/2026. The custody was granted on 24.06.2026 and was
in force till 27.06.2026. On that day, again the petitioner was
presented before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the
jurisdictional Magistrate extended the original custody.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that since the petitioner was already in custody in Crime
No.92/2026, his custody could not have been extended vide
order dated 27.06.2026 and as such, the custody is illegal. It is
the further submission that petitioner could not have been
simultaneously be given in police custody in two different
cases.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53001
CRL.P No. 11880 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544862026
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
contention would also place reliance on the judgment of the
Apex Court in Dhanraj Aswani vs Amar S. Mulchandani and
1
Another . Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that
while petitioner was sent back to the police custody in Crime
No.148/2026, the grounds of arrest were not been furnished as
such, his custody is illegal.
12. Learned SPP appearing for the respondent/State
would submit that the petitioner was arrested in Crime
No.92/2026 in the first instance and then the petitioner was in
the custody in terms of the order passed by the Court. Later
one more case was registered against petitioner in FIR
No.148/2026 and his custody was sought by way of remand
application in the said case as he was already in custody in
Crime No.92/2026. Since petitioner was required to be
interrogated in connection with Crime No.148/2026, accepting
the grounds urged by the respondent-State the learned
Magistrate extended the custody from 23.06.2026 to
27.06.2026 and the custody in Crime No.148/2026 came to an
1
(2024) 10 SCC 336
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53001
CRL.P No. 11880 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544862026
end on 27.06.2026 and on that day, the Magistrate passed a
specific order stating that petitioner's original custody is
extended.
13. Learned SPP would submit that the order extending
original custody passed in Crime No.148/2026 is to be
understood as having extended the custody in Crime
No.92/2026. Thus, it is urged that the petitioner is not in
custody in Crime No.148/2026 from 27.06.2026 onwards.
Accused was in custody in Crime No.148/2026 from 23.07.2026
till 27.06.2026.
14. It is the further submission of the learned SPP that
on 27.08.2026 there was an order in Crime No.148/2026
extending the judicial custody. The said order led to the
confusion as to whether petitioner's custody was extended in
Crime No.148/2026 or in Crime No.92/2026 and the
clarification was sought in this behalf and the learned
Magistrate has clarified vide order dated 05.10.2026 that the
custody of the accused was extended in Crime No.92/2026 and
not in Crime No.148/2026.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53001
CRL.P No. 11880 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544862026
15. In addition, the learned SPP would also refer to the
judgment of the Apex Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs
2
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others and would refer to
paragraph No.41 of the said judgment to contend that in case
the person is arrested pursuant to the warrant issued by the
Court, then there is no need to serve the grounds of arrest and
the warrant itself would constitute the grounds of arrest.
16. Thus, it is urged that since the petitioner's custody
was lawfully taken, there is no violation of any of the provisions
of law relating to the arrest of the accused.
17. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
18. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would
refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Dhanraj Aswani ,
(supra) to contend that since the petitioner is deemed to be in
custody in Crime No.148/2026, his right to move anticipatory
bail application is taken away, the Court is of the view that
order passed by the Magistrate on 27.08.2026 in Crime
2
( 2026) 8 SCC 275
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53001
CRL.P No. 11880 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544862026
No.148/2026 extending the judicial custody cannot be
construed as having extended the custody in Crime
No.148/2026. Even the learned SPP has made a statement that
the petitioner is not in custody in Crime No.148/2026. More
than anything else, the learned Magistrate has clarified his
order extending custody stating that the custody of the accused
is extended in Crime No.92/2026.
19. It is also relevant to notice that the petitioner was
produced before the Court on 27.06.2026 in Crime
No.148/2026 and while extending the custody of the petitioner
the Court has clarified that the petitioner is given to the
original custody , which would mean the custody granted in
Crime No.92/2026.
20. That being the position, absolutely there is no
difficulty in holding that the petitioner is not in custody in Crime
No.148/2026 and his right to move anticipatory bail application
is very much intact.
21. In case any such application is filed, the
respondent-State shall not raise an objection stating that the
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53001
CRL.P No. 11880 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544862026
petitioner is already in custody in Crime No.148/2026. It is very
much clarified that the petitioner is in custody in Crime
No.92/2026.
22. As far as the contention that the petitioner's arrest
is illegal is concerned, the Court does not find any reason to
accept the said contention as the petitioner in Crime
No.148/2026 was given to the custody of the police on
23.06.2026 by the order of the Magistrate and petitioner was in
custody till 27.06.2026. Said custody cannot be said to be
termed as illegal custody. Such custody is in accordance with
law and all the procedures contemplated in law have been
followed.
23. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition No.11880/2026 is
dismissed.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48