Legal provisions involved: Sections 69, 89 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 187(4) of the BNSS, 2023; Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Judgement by: Karnataka High Court
Judge/Bench: Justice G. Basavaraja
Facts
The accused was arrested on 15 September 2025 for offences under the BNSS and the SC/ST Act. He was sent to judicial custody till 30 September 2025. On the date when the remand ended, the police did not produce the accused before the Trial Court, either in person or through video conferencing. No application was filed to extend his custody. Even so, the Trial Court adjourned the case to a later date without giving any reasons, and the accused remained in jail. He then approached the High Court seeking bail.
Key legal provisions
- Sections 69, 89, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Issues raised
Whether an accused can be kept in custody without being produced before the court and without a valid remand order?
Arguments of the case
The accused argued that his continued detention was illegal and violated his right to personal liberty. The State argued that the offences were serious and involved the SC/ST Act, so bail should not be granted.
Judgement
The High Court held that the detention after 30 September 2025 was illegal. It granted bail, stating that even in serious cases, courts must strictly follow remand procedures.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
