The Karnataka High Court has delivered a decisive clarification on the limits of judicial custody when charges are based on misapplied criminal provisions. In a case where the complainant alleged kidnapping of an adult daughter, the Court held that remand to custody was unlawful when the alleged offence could not legally subsist under the facts. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed merely because a complaint has been filed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Murali B.N. and Charan, are the son-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of the complainant, Smt. Jyoti. The complainant alleged that her daughter, who is married to petitioner No.1, was kidnapped and taken away against her will. A criminal case was registered under Sections 115(2), 137(2), 351(2), 3(5), and 329(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). However, the substance of the complaint, as acknowledged by the Court, was an allegation of abduction under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is non-bailable.
Procedural History
The case progressed as follows:
- 16 February 2026: The 32nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, ordered judicial custody of both petitioners pending investigation.
- 24 February 2026: The petitioners filed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the remand order and their release.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought immediate release from judicial custody, arguing that the alleged offence could not constitute a non-bailable crime under the facts, and that their detention was illegal and contrary to the principle of proportionality in pre-trial detention.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether judicial custody can be ordered for petitioners charged with bailable offences under the BNS, when the underlying allegation - though framed under BNS - essentially mirrors a non-bailable IPC offence that does not legally apply due to the victim’s age and consent.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Sri. Hemantha B. argued that the complainant’s daughter was above 18 years of age and had married petitioner No.1 voluntarily. Therefore, Section 363 IPC, which requires abduction of a person under 18, could not apply. Since the BNS charges were derivative of this misapplied IPC provision, the offences invoked under BNS were inherently bailable. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest and custody must be justified by necessity, not mere allegation.
For the Respondent
The State, through Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, contended that the BNS provisions invoked were procedural and that the police had sufficient grounds to initiate investigation. It was submitted that the Court should not interfere at the pre-trial stage and that the complainant’s version must be accepted prima facie. However, no specific statutory basis was provided to substantiate the non-bailable nature of the BNS offences in this context.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous analysis of the factual matrix and the legal classification of the alleged offence. It observed that the complainant’s daughter was an adult woman who had entered into a voluntary marriage with petitioner No.1. The Court emphasized that Section 363 IPC requires the abducted person to be under 18 years of age - a condition absent here. Therefore, the foundation of the complaint was legally unsustainable.
"If the offence alleged under Section 363 IPC is not made out because the victim is a major and married of her own volition, then the entire chain of prosecution based on that allegation collapses."
The Court further held that the BNS provisions invoked - Sections 115(2), 137(2), 351(2), 3(5), and 329(4) - are all bailable offences under the new Code. Even if the allegations were accepted at face value, they did not transform into non-bailable offences. The Court rejected the notion that a misframed complaint could justify pre-trial detention. It cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to affirm that custody must be proportionate to the nature of the offence, and that bailable offences cannot be the basis for judicial remand.
The Court also noted that the police had not demonstrated any risk of evidence tampering, flight, or threat to public order - factors required under Section 437 CrPC to justify denial of bail. The remand order was therefore an error apparent on the face of the record.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The Court held that judicial custody cannot be ordered for bailable offences, even if the underlying complaint is misframed. The remand order dated 16.02.2026 was set aside, and the petitioners were directed to be released immediately.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Arrest Cannot Be Based on Misapplied IPC Provisions
- Practitioners must scrutinize whether the alleged offence under BNS or IPC matches the factual matrix before filing or opposing custody.
- If the victim is a major and consent is established, Section 363 IPC cannot be invoked - any prosecution based on it is legally void.
Bailable Offences Preclude Judicial Custody
- Section 436 CrPC mandates release on bail for bailable offences; remand is impermissible.
- Courts must not defer to police discretion when the law clearly classifies an offence as bailable.
- This judgment overrides any practice of treating BNS charges as inherently non-bailable without statutory basis.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Police must record reasons for arrest under Section 41 CrPC; failure to do so renders detention illegal.
- Magistrates must independently verify the nature of the offence before ordering custody - blind acceptance of FIRs is no longer permissible.
- This ruling empowers defence counsel to move under Section 482 CrPC to quash custody orders in bailable cases where the charge is legally unsustainable.
