Back
Whitefield police's premature arrest illegal; Karnataka High Court imposes ₹3 lakh costs
Justice M Nagaprasanna of the has declared the arrest of a will by the Whitefield police as illegal, imposing ₹3 lakh in costs on the investigating officer and his supervisors for arresting the man before the date fixed in a .
The court also directed a against the responsible officers, cautioning against what it termed " ."
Case Background
The petitioner, Mr K.N. Mohan Reddy, was arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No.586/2026 registered at for offences punishable under . His alleged role was that of an to a will that was the subject of a pending civil suit.
On , the police issued a notice under , directing the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on at 11:00 a.m. for investigation. However, even before the appointed hour—nearly 48 hours before the petitioner could comply—the police raided his residence and took him into custody.
Legal Issue
The core question was whether an arrest made before the date specified in a Section 35(3) BNSS notice could be sustained in law. Section 35(3) provides a safeguard against unnecessary arrest by requiring the police to issue a notice to appear instead of effecting an immediate arrest. further stipulates that if the person complies with the notice, they cannot be arrested unless the police record reasons for the necessity of arrest.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner, through counsel , argued that the arrest was as it occurred before the deadline set by the police themselves. The opportunity to cooperate had not yet arisen.
The State Public Prosecutor, , attempted to defend the action, but the court found no legally sustainable justification for the .
Court's Analysis
Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the statutory procedure binds both sides equally. The notice casts an obligation on the citizen to cooperate, but equally imposes a restraint on the police against arrest except in circumstances recognized by law.
Relying on the 's decision in Satender Kumar Antil vs. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 162), the court reiterated that arrest is not mandatory in all cases. The power to arrest is discretionary, and the investigating officer must first assess the necessity of arrest. Even non-compliance with a notice does not automatically lead to arrest; it remains a last resort.
The court highlighted that the police cannot
"command compliance with one hand and extinguish the opportunity to comply with the other."
Key Observations
-
"A notice to appear tomorrow cannot become a licence to arrest today. The State cannot command compliance with one hand and extinguish the opportunity to comply with the other."
-
"Stop this
. Otherwise, we will have to stop it by iron hands."
-
"The conduct of the police was not merely attributable to the Investigating Officer but also raised questions regarding the supervisory responsibility of the entire police hierarchy."
Court's Decision
The High Court declared the arrest of Mr K.N. Mohan Reddy illegal. It imposed of ₹3 lakh to be paid by the Investigating Officer, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police responsible for the unlawful arrest. The amount shall not be borne by the State exchequer.
The court also directed a against the officers involved and noted that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, with the petitioner being merely an . The was confined to accused No.2 only and does not benefit accused No.1.
The matter is listed for further hearing on .
