Karnataka High Court slams police for illegal arrest, imposes ₹3 lakh fine

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The High Court of Karnataka has imposed an exemplary cost of ₹3 lakh on a sub-inspector (SI) of police and his two superior officers — an assistant commissioner of police (ACP) and a deputy commissioner of police (DCP) — for illegally arresting a man in an alleged case of fraud in the execution of a will, essentially civil in nature having a history of over three decades and related to a pending civil suit.

The court penalised the police after noting that the petitioner, K.N. Mohan Reddy, an attesting witness to the disputed will and arraigned as accused No. 2 under Sections 61, 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, was arrested nearly 48 hours before the deadline set by the investigating officer for him to appear before the police for investigation.

“The sequence of events leaves little room for ambiguity. When the police themselves commanded the petitioner to appear on August 27, at 11 a.m., the law necessarily afforded him until that hour to demonstrate compliance. Disobedience cannot be presumed before the command becomes enforceable. Yet, in the case at hand, the petitioner was arrested before the clock could even begin to test his obedience,” observed Justice M. Nagaprasanna.

The court observed Sunil Kumar K.R, a sub-inspector attached to the Whitefield Police Station in Bengaluru, had issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS on August 25, directing the petitioner to appear before him on August 27 at 11 a.m. However, instead of allowing the petitioner an opportunity to comply, the police arrested him from his residence on the very day the notice was issued.

“This turns the statutory safeguard on its head,” the court said while observing that “the notice under Section 35(3), which ought to have operated as a shield against unnecessary arrest, was rendered a mere piece of paper by the very authority that had issued it.”

Referring to the apex court’s judgments, the court said that arrest is not essential in every case even if there is disobedience of a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.