Karnataka HC Rejects NDPS Accused’s Remand Challenge, Says He Can Seek Anticipatory Bail In Case Where His Custody Had Ended

The petitioner was arrested in Crime No. 92/2026, registered at Hebbal Police Station for an offence under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

He was also named as an accused in Crime No. 148/2026, registered at Yeshwantpura Police Station for an offence under the same provision.

While the petitioner was in custody in Crime No. 92/2026, the Magistrate ordered his police custody in Crime No. 148/2026 from 23 to 27 June 2026.

On 27 June, the Magistrate recorded that the petitioner was being returned to his “original custody”; a later order and clarification dated 5 October 2026 confirmed that his continuing custody was in Crime No. 92/2026, not Crime No. 148/2026.

The petitioner challenged the police-remand order dated 24 June 2026, the use of a body warrant to secure his production, and his custody in Crime No. 148/2026, alleging that the custody was unlawful and that grounds of arrest had not been furnished.

The petition invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and concerned an alleged offence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act.

The Court considered *Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani* (2024) 10 SCC 336, cited by the petitioner in relation to custody and the right to seek anticipatory bail, and *Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh* (2026) 8 SCC 275, cited by the State for the proposition that, where a person is arrested pursuant to a court warrant, the warrant may constitute the grounds of arrest.

The Court relied on the Magistrate’s record that, on 27 June 2026, the petitioner was returned to his “original custody,” which meant custody in Crime No. 92/2026.

It also relied on the Magistrate’s 5 October clarification and the State’s submission that the petitioner was not in custody in Crime No. 148/2026 after 27 June.

Accordingly, the later order extending judicial custody in Crime No. 148/2026 did not, in the Court’s view, place or continue the petitioner in custody in that case.

His right to seek anticipatory bail in Crime No. 148/2026 therefore remained intact, and the State was directed not to oppose such an application on the ground that he was already in custody in that crime.

Separately, the Court rejected the challenge to the police custody, finding that the Magistrate had ordered custody in Crime No. 148/2026 from 23 to 27 June and that the custody was in accordance with law and procedure.

It rejected the contention that the police custody in Crime No. 148/2026 was illegal and dismissed the criminal petition.