ORDER : This petition is examined only with reference to prayer made by first petitioner, since by our order dated 27.05.2021 we have already dismissed the writ petition filed by petitioner Nos.2 to 4 for the reasons indicated therein. The short point that arises for our consideration in this petition is; “Whether first petitioner could be detained by the respondent-authorities on the ground that body warrant issued against him is pending?” 2. The facts in brief which has led to filing of this petition can be crystallized as under: Petitioner was the Managing Director of M/s.Green Buds Agro Farm Ltd., which company had been registered under the Companies Act and it is said to have collected money from the depositors and even on maturity of the said deposits namely, the amount due to depositors were not refunded, who were entitled to receive the deposit with accrued interest. On account of such depositors having been refused payment, it resulted in several complaints being filed by the depositors across the State and as such FIR’s came to be registered against first petitioner and others. 3. The sum and substance of the grievance raised by first petitioner in this petition is, he is illegally detained by the fourth respondent even after bail having been granted on 28.03.2021 in connection with C.C.Nos.3258-3261/2015 & C.C.No.3263/2015 which proceedings are pending before the 8th Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore, which was an off shoot of the compliant filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence, a Writ of Habeas Corpus has been sought for to direct the fourth respondent to release the first petitioner forthwith. 4. Petitioner has not pressed prayer (c) as fairly submitted by Sri. Shankarappa, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Said submission is placed on record. 5. Respondents on being notified, appeared and filed counter contending interalia that there are several cases pending against the petitioner and body warrants have been issued against the petitioner and also remand warrant has been issued by different Courts. Hence, contending that detention of first petitioner is not illegal detention and as such have sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard Sri.Shankarappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.V.S.Hegde, learned SPP-II appearing for the State, we may notice at this juncture itself that purported remand warrant that was issued against petitioner has not been re-issued subsequent to 31.05.2021. 6. Having heard Sri.Shankarappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.V.S.Hegde, learned SPP-II appearing for the State, we may notice at this juncture itself that purported remand warrant that was issued against petitioner has not been re-issued subsequent to 31.05.2021. In other words, there is no remand warrant pending against the petitioner, which fact is not disputed by the learned SPP-II too. 7. That apart, body warrants which have been issued against first petitioner as enumerated in paragraph No.4 of the petition has got spent itself or in other words, it has receded to the background, since the cases, which have been relied upon by the respondents-prosecution to contend that detention of first petitioner is a preventive detention or his detention is in accordance with law on account of said body warrants are pending execution cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in all these cases the jurisdictional Court has enlarged the first petitioner on bail conditionally. In fact, we may refer to two cases in which body warrants are said to have been issued against the accused, which is relied upon by the State to contend that on account of said body warrants issued against first petitioner being pending. He has been detained in the prison, namely C.C.No.788/2014 which proceedings have been initiated for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC has ended in acquittal by judgment dated 03.11.2020 and C.C.No.960/2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the JMFC, Hunsur, has resulted in its disposal on 09.05.2019. In fact, both these cases, as noticed hereinabove, have been ended in acquittal/disposal and the order sheet of these cases have also been filed by the petitioner on 19.05.2021. Yet, the State in its affidavit filed on 11.05.2021 has sought to rely upon the purported parawise remarks furnished by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Mysuru, to buttress its argument that detention of 1st Petitioner is not illegal on account of body warrant issued against the petitioner pending. 8. Coordinate Bench of this Court headed by the then Hon’ble Justice Mohan. M.Shantanagoudar (as he then was) in the matter of GAURAV GOEL vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 8. Coordinate Bench of this Court headed by the then Hon’ble Justice Mohan. M.Shantanagoudar (as he then was) in the matter of GAURAV GOEL vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. reported in ILR 2015 KAR 4675 has held that mere pendency of body warrant will not be enough to keep the prisoner in prison beyond the date of expiry of sentence or beyond the date of release order, in case bail is granted and release order is made. 9. In the instant case, as could be seen from the pleadings of the parties, first petitioner has been released on bail in all the cases, which has been relied upon by the prosecution namely, State. We also notice at this juncture itself that State has not been able to place on record any material to demonstrate or prove that bail has not been granted against the first petitioner in respect of cases where body warrants has been issued. In other words, there is no such case which the State has relied upon in which petitioner has not been ordered to be released on bail. The fact of petitioner having been enlarged on bail in respect of cases relied upon prosecution is not disputed. 10. In the light of law laid down by the Coordinate bench in GAURAV GOEL's case referred to herein supra, we are of the opinion that first petitioner would be entitled to the relief sought for. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) First petitioner is ordered to be released by respondents No.2 to 4 forthwith. (iii) However, we make it clear that in the event of there being any other criminal cases pending against the petitioners and jurisdictional Court having issued any detention order wherein the bail has not been granted, this order would not enure to the benefit of petitioner. (iv) It is also made clear that petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court in the cases registered against him, which are pending before the different Courts on the dates of hearing unless otherwise exempted.