The Karnataka High Court has condemned the arrest of a person despite the issuance of a statutory notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, directing him to appear for investigation on a future date. The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna described the police action as a 'classical illustration' of illegal arrest and remarked that it amounted to 'taking the liberty of citizens for granted in this fashion'.
The court observed that the notice issued to the petitioner on August 25, 2026, under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, expressly directed him to appear before the Whitefield Police Station at 11:00 AM on August 27, 2026, for the purpose of investigation. Despite this, police officials allegedly arrived at the petitioner's residence in the early hours of August 25, served the notice upon him, and immediately took him into custody without affording any opportunity to comply with the statutory requirement.
The Bench noted that the arrest occurred on the same date the notice was issued, while the notice itself mandated appearance two days later, on August 27, 2026. The court emphasized that no new circumstance had arisen to justify such immediate arrest, and the petitioner was denied even the chance to appear on the stipulated date.
Advocate Angad Kamath, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the proceedings for the production of the petitioner before the judicial magistrate were already underway when the case was being argued. The court accordingly directed that if the petitioner had been taken into custody by this illegal act, he shall be released forthwith from custody.
The court further directed the Investigating Officer whose conduct was deemed illegal to appear before it on August 27, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. to answer as to why exemplary cost should not be imposed on him for acting completely contrary to law.
The FIR in question, registered by the Whitefield Police Station two weeks prior, named the petitioner as accused number two in an offence involving Sections 61 (criminal conspiracy), 338 (forgery of a Will or other specified documents), and 340(2) (fraudulent or dishonest use of forged document as genuine) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case stems from a decades-old disputed Will and related documents concerning immovable property at Nallurahalli.
The petition also challenges the FIR on the ground that it fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The case is titled Mr. K.N. Mohan Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Another, bearing Case No. Crl P: 13117/2026.
The Bench reiterated its prior observations that citizens are frequently arrested without rhyme or reason, and stated that the present case forms a classical illustration of such illegal arrest. The court directed that its order be communicated immediately to prison authorities by the Court Registry to ensure compliance.