Remand To Judicial Custody Illegal When Invoked Offences Are Bailable: Karnataka High Court Quashes Man's Custody For Allegedly Kidnapping Wife
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna ordered the release of a man who had been remanded to judicial custody on charges of kidnapping his own wife. The court found that since the woman was an adult who had voluntarily gone with her husband, the kidnapping provision under the Indian Penal Code was incorrectly invoked against the petitioners. As all the offences registered in the matter were bailable in nature, the court held that the trial court had no authority to send the accused to judicial custody and accordingly set aside the remand order.
Two petitioners, including the husband of an adult woman, filed a criminal petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a remand order passed by the 32nd ACJM, Bengaluru. The crime had been registered at Rajajinagara Police Station on a complaint filed by the woman's mother, who alleged that her daughter had been kidnapped by her son-in-law. The offences registered were under Sections 115(2), 137(2), 351(2), 3(5) and 329(4) of the BNS.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Court that the daughter of the complainant and the first petitioner were married, and that she had on her own volition entered the house of the first petitioner. It was further submitted that the daughter of the complainant was above 18 years of age. The counsel for the State appeared for respondent No.1.
On the facts of the case, the court observed that the complainant's daughter and the petitioner were married, and recorded that "the daughter of the complainant and petitioner No.1 are married and on her own volition, has walked into the house of petitioner No.1." The court further stated that the situation "Prima-facie, looks like a classic illustration of the abuse of process of the law."
On the applicability of the kidnapping provision and the consequence of its wrongful invocation, the court observed that "What is alleged in the case at hand is the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC. It is an admitted fact that the daughter of the complainant is beyond 18 years and has married accused No.1. In that light, the offence of Section 363 of the IPC is wrongly laid against the petitioners. If the said offence is wrongly laid, bail ought to have been granted in the aforesaid offence and not remand the petitioners to judicial custody."
On the bailable nature of the offences and the error in the remand order, the court stated that "the petitioners are entitled the benefit being set at liberty in the teeth of the aforesaid offences which were all bailable. Since the offences were bailable, there could not have been order of remand to judicial custody of the petitioners. In the light of offences being bailable, a remand to judicial custody could not have passed by the concerned Court. Therefore, there is an error apparent."
The court concluded by recording that "In the light of the petitioners being taken into custody for such an offence, the inevitable conclusion would be them being set at liberty. The petition is allowed. The order dated 16.02.2026 passed in Crime No.25/2026 by the 32nd ACJM, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Hemantha B., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Murali B.N. and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another
Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:11283
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 2898 of 2026
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
