The Karnataka High Court has declared the arrest of a man illegal after Whitefield Police took him into custody even though they had issued him a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), directing him to appear for investigation two days later.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna also directed that ₹3 lakh in exemplary costs be paid personally by the Investigating Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned, rather than from the State exchequer.
Background Of The Case
The case arose from Crime No. 586/2026 registered at Whitefield Police Station under Sections 61, 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The petitioner was shown as accused No.2 in connection with a disputed Will pending before a civil court. His role, according to the order, was that of an attesting witness to the Will.
On August 25, 2026, police issued a Section 35(3) BNSS notice requiring him to appear at 11 a.m. on August 27. However, he was taken into custody before the scheduled appearance.
The High Court had already ordered his immediate release on August 25, observing that the arrest appeared contrary to Section 35 of the BNSS.
Court's Observations
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 35 BNSS, noting that arrest is discretionary and investigation does not necessarily require custody. Where a notice is issued, compliance with it is the statutory expectation, subject to the safeguards prescribed by law.
The Bench observed:
“Non-cooperation cannot precede the opportunity to cooperate. Disobedience cannot be presumed before the command becomes enforceable.”
It further noted that the Investigating Officer could not explain what circumstance made the arrest necessary before the petitioner’s time to comply with the notice had arrived.
The Court also noted that the dispute concerning the Will was pending before the competent civil court and that the petitioner was neither its propounder nor beneficiary.
Decision
The High Court declared the petitioner’s arrest illegal and directed departmental scrutiny of the Investigating Officer and supervisory officers. It quantified exemplary costs at ₹3 lakh, directing the Investigating Officer, ACP and DCP responsible for the arrest to pay the amount personally.
The Court clarified that the protective order applied only to accused No.2 and not accused No.1.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mr. K.N. Mohan Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 13117/2026 (482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS)
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: 27 August 2026
