SRI DHEERAJ vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61977
CRL.P No. 12023 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544842026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12023 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.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SOMANNA K P,ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M V ANOOP KUMAR, ADDL.SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF TRANSET WARRANT DTD 15.05.2026 PASSED BY
THE DUTY JMFC (NI ACT)-04, SOUTH SAKET, NEW DELHI AND
THE 1st ORDER OF REMAND DTD 19.05.2026 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED 8th ACJM, BENGALURU, ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.92/2026, TOGETHER WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
REMAND ORDERS PASSED THEREAFTER AND ETC.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61977
CRL.P No. 12023 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544842026
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.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner was arrested on 14.05.2026 at 11:00 a.m. in
Delhi and was produced before the Magistrate on the next day
at 05:00 p.m i.e. beyond 24 hours from the time of arrest.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the
judgment of the Apex Court in SRI SUJIT DAS AND ORS.
1
ETC. VS. UNION OF INDIA
and would contend that the
computation of 24 hours has to commence from the time of
apprehending and not from the time of formal arrest. Thus,
learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the arrest
is illegal and the petitioner has to be released.
4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
would submit that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that
1
Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos.12451-12453/2026
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61977
CRL.P No. 12023 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544842026
he had filed a petition seeking bail and the same was
withdrawn without any liberty to file a fresh petition challenging
the order of arrest. Thus, would contend that the petitioner is
not entitled to any relief.
5. Learned Additional SPP elaborating the contention
would submit that the petitioner had filed this petition on
05.08.2026 and in this petition he has not disclosed his earlier
petition seeking bail. It is submitted that the bail petition was
withdrawn on 08.08.2026 without reserving any liberty to
challenge the order of detention. It is urged that since the
petitioner has suppressed this fact is not entitled to any relief in
this case.
6. In addition to that learned Additional SPP also
submit that the petitioner was arrested at 11:00 a.m. and was
produced before the Magistrate at 05:00 p.m. next day as
such, the arrest is legal.
7. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61977
CRL.P No. 12023 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544842026
8. From the records, it is evident that the petitioner
was apprehended at 11:00 a.m. and he was later produced
before the Magistrate on the next day at 05:00 p.m., 24 hours
after the time of apprehending the petitioner. The Apex Court
in the case of SRI SUJIT DAS AND ORS. ETC., supra, in para
No.69 has held as under:
"69. In the circumstances, we would like to summarize
our conclusions as under:
(i) the 24 hours timeline as mandated under
clause (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of
India would commence from the date and
time of detention of the person detained
when his liberty stands curtailed and not
from the time of his formal arrest;
(ii) in the event, such detention continues
beyond 24 hours before the person is
produced before a magistrate, he shall be
forthwith released from custody;
(iii) while computing the 24 hours deadline,
no other time period is permitted to be
excluded therefrom except the time
necessary for the journey from the place of
arrest to the court of the magistrate;
(iv) the decisions of the Orissa High Court in
Aryaman Pattnayak, Madras High Court in
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61977
CRL.P No. 12023 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544842026
Kannan and Kerala High Court in Arun K.
Thomas do not lay down the correct law qua
interpretation of clause (2) of Article 22 of
the Constitution of India;
(v) the detaining authority should keep in
mind not only the 24 hours deadline
mandated by clause (2) of Article 22 of the
Constitution but also ensure that such
detention should not extend beyond a
reasonable period within the 24 hours period
considering the circumstances of the case in
terms of Section 58 BNSS (Section 57
CrPC);
(vi) at the time of production, the
magistrate is duty bound to record the
actual date and time of detention of the
person produced before him when his liberty
stood curtailed and examine whether the 24
hours deadline has been complied with or
not from the time of such detention. If there
is breach of the 24 hours deadline, the
concerned person shall be released forthwith
from detention;
(vii) the magistrate shall also examine at
the time of production whether the
detention of the person produced, though is
within the time frame of 24 hours, has
exceeded the period which can be construed
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61977
CRL.P No. 12023 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544842026
to be reasonable in the circumstances of the
case. If he is satisfied that detention in
custody has been for a longer period than
what is reasonable, he may decline remand;
(viii) in so far the present case is concerned,
for the reasons cited in paragraphs 65, 66
and 67 above, the detention of the
appellants was not only in breach of clause
(2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India
but was for a period beyond what can be
construed to be a reasonable period
considering all the circumstances of the case
which was in contravention of Section 58
BNSS (Section 57 CrPC);
(ix) consequently, we set aside the
impugned judgment and order of the High
Court dated 29.04.2026 and direct that the
appellants shall be produced before the
jurisdictional Special Court within a
maximum period of 7 days from today
whereafter they shall be released on bail on
such terms and conditions as may be
.
deemed appropriate"
9. The Apex Court has held that the 24 hours timeline
as mandated under clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution
commences from the date and time of detention of the person
detained and not from the time of his formal arrest.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61977
CRL.P No. 12023 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544842026
10. Since it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was
apprehended at 11:00 a.m. his detention beyond 24 hours and
production at 05:00 p.m. next day is per se illegal.
11. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has to be
released.
12. Though the learned Additional SPP would submit
that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that his bail
petition is pending before this Court when he filed the present
petition, the Court is the view that the present petition is on the
ground that the arrest is illegal and the prayer in the bail
petition for his release would be on a different ground. Even in
the said petition seeking bail if the petitioner had urged the
ground that his detention beyond 24 hours is illegal, the
withdrawal of the earlier petition cannot be construed as a bar
to raise the said ground in the present petition. However, the
Court is of the view that the petitioner should have disclose the
said fact in the petition.
13. The suppression of the said fact cannot be a ground
to reject the present petition seeking petitioner's release on the
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61977
CRL.P No. 12023 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010544842026
ground that arrest beyond 24 hours is illegal. The Court has
not appreciated the conduct of the petitioner in not disclosing
the fact that his petition seeking bail is pending consideration
when he has filed the present petition.
14. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed .
(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be released, forthwith,
if not required in any other cases.
(iii) However, the respondent-State is at liberty to take
such action as advised in law, in case his custody is
required for justifiable reasons as the petitioner is
ordered to be released on the technical ground that
his arrest beyond 24 hours without producing the
petitioner before the Magistrate is illegal.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57
…