Bengaluru: Holding that anticipatory bail cannot be rendered meaningless by the subsequent addition of offences, the Karnataka high court has quashed a police custody order passed against a city-based builder.Justice M Nagaprasanna said in his recent ruling that the 14-day custody order passed by the principal city civil and sessions judge on April 9 against Virtue Infra Builders Pvt Ltd managing director Aravind Kumar R was procedurally flawed and illegal, particularly since the same court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on Dec 16, 2025.The case arose from a complaint filed by N Asha before JP Nagar police on Nov 25 last year alleging that Aravind and his associates had cheated her and her daughter Veena of Rs 17 lakh by promising a housing site that was never delivered.Soon after the filing of the case, Aravind secured anticipatory bail from the trial court. However, more than four months later, while the bail order remained in force, police invoked provisions of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments (KPIDFE) Act against him. Permission to add the offence was granted on Jan 27, following which the trial court ordered 14 days of police custody on April 9. The builder approached the high court challenging the remand order.Justice Nagaprasanna found serious procedural irregularities in the trial court’s decision to allow police custody despite the anticipatory bail. The HC observed that the mere addition of a new offence does not cause an anticipatory bail order to “vanish in thin air.” It held that once anticipatory bail is granted, it remains valid unless cancelled through due legal process by the same court or a superior court after hearing the parties and examining any alleged violation of bail conditions.The judge noted that no such cancellation proceedings had been initiated in the case. Instead, the trial court granted police custody solely on a remand application, ignoring its own earlier order granting anticipatory bail.Calling the decision a “gross procedural aberration,” the high court held that handing over the petitioner to police custody in the face of a subsisting anticipatory bail order was illegal on the face of it. The court clarified that although Section 9 of the KPIDFE Act bars anticipatory bail, the provision would apply when the offence exists at the time bail is sought.In this case, the KPIDFE offence was added only later, after the anticipatory bail had already been granted.Justice Nagaprasanna observed that if the prosecution believed the gravity of the newly added offence warranted custodial interrogation, it was open to seek the cancellation of bail through proper legal proceedings. However, bypassing the process and obtaining police custody through remand was impermissible.
