The Karnataka High Court on Monday (February 23) ordered the release of a man accused of theft who remained in jail for three years even after a court granted him bail. He stayed in custody because he could not arrange the surety fixed by the trial court.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order after pointing to serious procedural lapses in the handling of the petitioner’s custody. On Saturday, the High Court questioned prison officials for not producing the petitioner before the concerned court even once during his four years in judicial custody. The Court also recorded that the trial court adjourned the case on 20 hearing dates because authorities did not produce him.
Background and petitioner’s plea
The petitioner moved the High Court and sought quashing of proceedings under Section 380 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He submitted that authorities kept him in custody unlawfully. He also challenged the issuance of a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against him, despite the fact that he was already in judicial custody.
Earlier, the High Court called for a report on the steps taken to ensure such an anomaly does not recur. The Court then listed the matter to consider the petitioner’s request for release from prison.
Court’s findings on bail and surety
Dictating the order, Justice Nagaprasanna said the case revealed “several aberrations.” He referred to the Court’s earlier order dated 21-2-2026, which directed listing of the matter to decide the prayer for release.
The High Court noted that the petitioner remained in prison for the last three years even though bail had been granted. The only reason was his inability to furnish sureties. The Court held that keeping an accused behind bars after bail, merely because he cannot provide surety, violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. It has held that insistence on surety—and a person’s inability to furnish it—should not compel an accused to continue languishing in prison after bail.
In view of these circumstances, the High Court dispensed with the surety requirement. It directed the petitioner’s release on execution of a personal bond, subject to the condition that he is not required in any other case.
Case Title: IMRAN @ KULLA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA
