In a significant ruling on personal liberty, the High Court of Karnataka ordered the release of a murder accused after finding that police failed to provide him with written grounds of arrest, as required by law.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held that non-compliance with Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, rendered the arrest illegal. The court partly allowed the bail petition filed by accused No.2, Nanjunda, who had been in judicial custody since April 2025.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Allows Single Mother to Change Daughter’s Name, Caste in School Record
Background of the Case
The case stems from a violent altercation in Hassan district on the night of April 4, 2025.
According to the prosecution, the deceased, Lakkappa, had earlier dismissed accused No.1 from his job after allegedly catching him stealing copra (dried coconut). The dismissal allegedly sparked resentment.
On the night of the incident, a group of men were playing chowkabara (a traditional board game) outside a house when accused No.1 allegedly threatened to inform the police, accusing them of gambling. Shortly afterward, the deceased arrived and questioned him.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Refuses Relief to New Nursing Colleges, Says Counselling Cannot Be Reopened
The situation escalated.
The charge sheet alleges that accused No.2, the present petitioner, went inside the house, brought a knife, and stabbed the deceased on the left side of his ribs. Accused No.1 allegedly took the knife and stabbed the deceased again in the chest. Two others who tried to intervene sustained injuries.
The post-mortem report recorded the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock due to a penetrating injury to the lung and chest.
Nine witnesses, including two injured persons, supported the prosecution version.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioner argued that although the charge sheet had been filed and custodial interrogation was no longer required, the arrest itself was illegal because the police failed to furnish written grounds of arrest before producing him before the magistrate.
Read also:- Jharkhand HC Seeks Answers on 437 Custodial Deaths, Orders Home Secretary to Clarify Judicial
He relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, to contend that “grounds of arrest” must be clearly communicated in writing and cannot be confused with general “reasons for arrest.”
“The grounds of arrest are personal to the accused and must enable him to defend himself,” the petitioner’s counsel submitted.
The State opposed the plea, arguing that arrest intimation was given to the petitioner’s sister and that the arrest memo mentioned that reasons had been informed. The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of the offence, punishable with death or life imprisonment, and the risk of witness intimidation if bail were granted.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Cuts Jail Term in ATM Cloning Case, Enhances Fine to ₹2 Lakh Each
Court’s Observations
Justice Amarannavar examined the trial court records and found that written grounds of arrest had not been furnished to the petitioner before remand.
Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the court noted the distinction between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest.”
“The ‘grounds of arrest’ must contain all basic facts that necessitated the arrest and must be communicated effectively in writing,” the bench observed, quoting the apex court’s interpretation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
The judge further noted that under the law laid down by the Supreme Court, failure to supply written grounds within a reasonable time - and in any case before remand - renders the arrest illegal.
Applying this principle, the court held that the investigating officer had failed to comply with Section 47 of BNSS (equivalent to Section 50 of the CrPC).
“Therefore, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling the release of the arrestee,” the court said.
At the same time, the court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations and the presence of multiple eyewitnesses, including injured witnesses, supporting the prosecution case.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Bail to Odisha Murder Convict After 11 Years in Jail, Flags Delay in High
The Decision
In its order dated February 10, 2026, the High Court partly allowed the petition.
The court directed that the petitioner be set at liberty. However, it clarified that the prosecution is free to move a fresh application for remand or custody after properly supplying the written grounds of arrest.
The court also noted a lapse on the part of the Circle Police Inspector of Arsikere Rural Circle in not complying with statutory requirements. A copy of the order has been directed to be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Hassan.
With these directions, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Nanjunda v. State of Karnataka
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.16200/2025
Decision Date: 10 February 2026
