Karnataka High Court Criticizes Bengaluru Police for Premature Arrest
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday expressed its displeasure at the actions of the Bengaluru police, following the arrest of a man two days prior to the date he was scheduled to present himself for an investigation related to a forgery case. This arrest raised questions about procedural integrity and the adherence to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The individual in question was taken into custody on August 25, despite having received a formal notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to appear before the police on August 27. Justice M Nagaprasanna described this incident as a “classic illustration” of illegal arrest and ordered the immediate release of the detained man.
Legal Framework and Court’s Observations
Section 35(3) of BNSS mandates that police are required to issue a notice of appearance to the accused for offenses punishable by up to seven years, instead of proceeding with an immediate arrest. The court underscored that an arrest should only occur if the accused fails to cooperate with the investigation after receiving such a notice.
Justice Nagaprasanna commented, “This court is repeatedly observing, citizens are arrested without rhyme or reason. This case forms a classic illustration of such illegal arrest.” The court made it clear that once a notice under Section 35(3) is issued, taking the accused into custody without allowing the time stipulated is inappropriate.
The court also instructed the investigating officer from Whitefield Police Station to appear personally on August 27 to justify why exemplary costs should not be imposed for the premature arrest. Justice Nagaprasanna questioned, “When you issue a notice asking him to come on August 27, how do you pick him up on August 25? Arresting someone has become a joke to the police here?”
More Read
Representation and Legal Proceedings
The arrested man’s legal representative, Advocate Angad Kamath, argued that the arrest was conducted despite a valid notice for appearance on a future date. Kamath submitted that his client was apprehended from his residence, disregarding the issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS.
The petitioner contended that the allegations against him were solely based on his role as a signatory to a will, which was claimed to be forged by another party amidst a long-standing civil dispute spanning 16 years.
The court noted that the arrest appeared to be illegitimate, as it occurred before the scheduled date of investigation. “The notice directed him to appear on August 27, 2026, a date yet to arrive. Taking him into custody is evidently illegal,” the court recorded in its order.
More Read
Further Actions by the Court
In response to the actions of the investigating officer, the court mandated his presence on August 27 at 2:30 PM to explain the reasoning behind the arrest and to consider potential penalties for his actions. State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha assured the court of the officer’s attendance, noting that the charge involved forgery under Section 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Justice Nagaprasanna expressed dissatisfaction with the procedural missteps, questioning why the arrest occurred after issuing a notice for a later appearance, and criticized the officer’s actions as nonsensical and contrary to legal norms.
