Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, Karnataka High Court
Accused Produced Under Body Warrant In Second Case & Remanded To Custody In Said Case, Can Seek Regular Bail: Karnataka High Court
|The accused persons approached the Karnataka High Court seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 392, 120B, read with 34 of the IPC.
The Karnataka High Court has recently ruled that if an accused who is produced under a body warrant in the second case is remanded to custody in the said case, the only remedy available to him is to seek regular bail.
The accused persons approached the High Court seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 392, 120B read with 34 of the IPC.
The Single Bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty explained, “After expiry of the police custody, when such an accused is produced before the jurisdictional court with a requisition to remand him to judicial custody in the said case, the court if satisfied can formally remand such accused to judicial custody in the said case before returning the said accused to custody in the original case from which he is produced under body warrant before the said court. If an accused who is produced under body warrant in the second case is remanded to custody in the said case, the only remedy available to him is to seek regular bail.”
Senior Counsel Vivek S. Reddy represented the Petitioners while SPP B.A. Belliappa represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The FIR in this case was initially registered in Crime No.129/2024 against the petitioners under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC. The petitioners who were in judicial custody in Crime No.248/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 309(6), 329(4), 126(2) & 311 of BNS, 2023, were produced under body warrant in Crime No.129/2024 before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate and were remanded to police custody. The petitioners were produced before the Court of the Magistrate in Crime No.129/2024.
The Petitioners were remanded to judicial custody in Crime No.248/2024. After completing the investigation in Crime No.129/2024, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, and thereafter, the case was committed to the jurisdictional Sessions Court and numbered as S.C.No.9/2025 which has been pending before the Court of IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. In the said case, petitioners had filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.PC, seeking regular bail and the same was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners approached the High Court.
Reasoning
Referring to a catena of judgments before the Apex Court, the Bench held that an accused who is in custody in earlier case can be arrested formally by police in a different case and orders can be sought from the jurisdictional court to issue body warrant/PT warrant under Section 302 of BNSS, 2023. “When body warrant is issued by the jurisdictional court, the accused has to be produced before the said court on the date and time mentioned in the warrant, subject to Sections 303 & 304 of BNSS, 2023”, it said.
As per the Bench, the court before which the accused is produced, acting under Section 187(2) of BNSS, 2023, can either remand the said accused to police custody or judicial custody. The said court can also release him on bail if applied for and allowed. The Bench also mentioned that if the court before which an accused is produced under body warrant refuses to remand him to judicial custody, and on the other hand remands him to judicial custody in the original case and in the event he is enlarged on bail in the original case, after compliance of conditions of bail order, he has to be released from jail and he cannot be detained merely for the reason that body warrant was issued against him in the second case.
“If the accused who is produced under body warrant in the second case is remanded to judicial custody in the said case, even if the said accused is enlarged on bail in the original case, the jail authorities cannot release him from jail without any release order in the second case from the competent court”, it added.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioners had been enlarged on bail in Crime No.248/2024. In the case arising from Crime No.129/2024, at any stage petitioners were not arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, their regular bail application in Crime No.129/2024 was not at all maintainable. The Bench further noticed that after realizing the mistake, the Sessions Judge, thereafter on the very same date, issued a non-bailable warrant to the accused in Crime No.129/2024 and subsequently the presence of accused persons was secured.
“Since the petitioners are now in custody in S.C.No.9/2025 pursuant to the execution of non-bailable warrant issued against them by the jurisdictional court, it cannot be said that their custody is illegal behalf of the petitioners after they were remanded to judicial custody in S.C.No.9/2025 has been dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, without approaching the Trial Court, the petitioners could not have approached this Court under Section 439 of CrPC”, it said.
Thus, the Bench dismissed the petition by reserving liberty to the petitioners to file fresh bail application before the Trial Court in Crime No.129/2024.
Cause Title: Jeevan M v. State Of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:28598)
Appearance
Petitioners: Senior Counsel Vivek S. Reddy, Advocate Rajakumar H.K
Respondent: SPP B.A. Belliappa, HCGP Waheeda M.M.