Karnataka High Court slams police for illegal arrest, fines ₹3 million

View of Karnataka High Court.

The Karnataka High Court has imposed exemplary costs of ₹3,000 on a sub-inspector (SI) of police and his two senior officers — an assistant commissioner of police (ACP) and a deputy commissioner of police (DCP) — for illegally arresting a man in an alleged will fraud case, essentially civil in nature and related to more than three decades of civil litigation.

The court chastised the police after observing that the petitioner, KN Mohan Reddy, an attesting witness to the disputed will and accused as Accused No. 2 under Sections 61, 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, was arrested almost 48 hours before the date set for him by the investigating officer.

No ambiguity

“The sequence of events leaves little room for ambiguity. When the police themselves ordered the petitioner to appear on August 27 at 11 a.m., the law necessarily allowed him to demonstrate compliance by that hour. Disobedience cannot be presumed before the order becomes enforceable. Yet in the instant case, the petitioner was arrested hours earlier,” noted Naprasanna.ga.

The court found that Sunil Kumar KR, Sub-Inspector, Whitefield Police Station, Bengaluru, issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS on August 25, directing the petitioner to appear before him on August 27 at 11:00 AM. Instead of giving the petitioner an opportunity to comply, the police arrested him on the very day the notice was issued.

“This turns the statutory safeguard on its head,” the court said, noting that “the notification under Section 35(3), which was supposed to act as a shield against unnecessary arrest, was a mere piece of paper by the issuing authority itself.

Arrest is not necessary

Referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court, the court said that arrest is not necessary in every case, even if there is disobedience to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. He stated that the investigating officer in the present case did not even have an opportunity to form an opinion that the petitioner was non-cooperative.

“Silence was the only answer” was the sub-inspector when he was personally summoned by the court and asked what compelling circumstance justified the arrest, what additional materials appeared between the issuance of the notice and the arrest, whether there was apprehension of absconding, destruction of evidence, intimidation of witnesses or obstruction of the investigation in the court, whether there was any obstruction of the superior in the investigation, whether there was any obstruction of the investigation.

A senior officer cannot remain a silent spectator while a subordinate treats statutory protections as expendable paperwork and then seeks shelter behind the individual actions of an investigating officer, the court said while imposing costs on the sub-inspector and his superiors.

The court made it clear that the costs were not to be paid from the treasury, but had to be borne personally by the three officials and paid by the petitioner from his own funds.

Published – 28 Aug 2026 18:46 IST