The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday pulled up the Bengaluru police for arresting a man two days before the date on which he was asked to appear before the police in connection with a forgery case investigation. The man was arrested on August 25, 2026, despite being served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), directing him to appear before the police on August 27, 2026.
Justice M Nagaprasanna termed the arrest a 'classic illustration' of an illegal arrest and ordered the man's immediate release. The Court observed that if the petitioner had been taken into custody by this illegal act of the investigating officer, the matter would be viewed seriously, and directed that the petitioner be released forthwith from custody.
The Court emphasised that Section 35(3) of the BNSS requires the police to issue a formal notice of appearance to an accused person instead of arresting them immediately for crimes carrying a punishment of up to seven years. Once such a notice is issued, arrest can ordinarily follow only if the noticee fails to cooperate with the investigation. The Court stated that as it is repeatedly observing, citizens are arrested without rhyme or reason, and the present case forms a classic illustration of such illegal arrest.
The Court noted that the notice issued to the petitioner admittedly directed him to appear before the police for the purpose of investigation on August 27, 2026, which date is yet to come. However, the petitioner was taken into custody on August 25, 2026, which act on the face of it is illegal.
Taking serious note of the conduct of the investigating officer in this matter, the Court directed him to remain personally present before it on Thursday, August 27, 2026, at 2:30 PM to explain why exemplary costs should not be imposed on him for an act done completely contrary to law, taking away the liberty of citizens in this fashion. The State Public Prosecutor, BN Jagadeesha, assured the Court that the investigating officer would be present.
The Public Prosecutor informed the Court that the offence under Section 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (forgery of valuable security, wills, and authority to adopt) had been invoked in the case. He also stated that the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS ought not to have been issued in the first place. However, the Court questioned how the police could have arrested a person once it had formally directed him to appear on a later date.
Advocate Angad Kamath, representing the arrested man, submitted that the petitioner was picked up from his residence by the Whitefield police on Tuesday morning, despite being served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS requiring his appearance only on August 27. Kamath further submitted that the petitioner had already been produced before the jurisdictional magistrate and remand proceedings were underway. According to the petitioner, the only allegation against him was that he was a signatory to a will which another person claimed was forged, stemming from a long-pending civil litigation between two families that had been pending for 16 years.
The Court held that the arrest appeared to be illegal on the face of it, reiterating that the notice issued to the petitioner directed him to appear on August 27, 2026, which date had not yet arrived, yet he was taken into custody on August 25, 2026. The Court's order recorded this finding explicitly.
The Karnataka High Court's intervention underscores the procedural safeguards mandated under the BNSS and serves as a reminder to investigative agencies that the issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) creates a legal expectation of appearance, not immediate arrest, unless cooperation is withdrawn. The directive for the investigating officer to appear before the Court signals the judiciary's intolerance for procedural lapses that infringe upon personal liberty.