The Karnataka High Court on Thursday strongly criticised police officers for making illegal arrests without adhering to settled legal principles, questioning whether the police believed that “having a uniform” entitled them to act without any regard to the law.

Justice M Nagaprasanna proceeded to direct the immediate release of a man arrested in a forgery case registered on his wife's complaint and ordered a departmental inquiry against an investigating officer attached to the Bagalur Police Station.

“You have uniform, can you do anything? Is sending a person to jail a play? Do you think it is play - sending someone to prison? If a crime is committed, definitely send him to jail, but in a manner known to law," the judge warned.

The Bench questioned why the complainant's husband was hastily arrested in the forgery case.

“The moment a wife registers a complaint, does the husband have to be sent to jail? In a forgery case can you send him to jail? Partnership between husband and wife is alleged to be forged. Why is the husband in lock-up?”

The accused man's counsel, Advocate Trivikram S, had submitted that the crime had been registered on December 19, 2025, alleging that the husband forged the wife's signature, created a partnership deed and opened a current account without her knowledge.

It was argued that no meaningful investigation was conducted for over three months after the registration of the FIR, before the accused was abruptly arrested.

The Court noted that the first investigating officer did no investigation worth the name for over three months. Thereafter, a new station house officer, Ramesh, took charge and allegedly showed undue interest in the matter.

The officer issued a notice seeking the petitioner's (accused man) appearance and, alleging non-cooperation, took him into custody more than four months after registration of the crime.

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the law is well settled through decisions of the Supreme Court, which hold that arrest should be the last resort, particularly in offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less.

The Court found that there were no reasons justifying the accused man's arrest, in this case, except a bald assertion that he had not cooperated with the investigation.

Holding that the investigating officer could not be left off the hook for acting blatantly contrary to law, the Court directed the competent authority to initiate a departmental inquiry against the station house officer/ investigating officer of Bagalur Police Station and submit a report within twelve weeks.

The Court also directed an inquiry into the conduct of the previous investigating officer for conducting “no investigation worth the name” from the date of registration of the crime till the change in incumbency.

The Registry was directed to immediately communicate the order through electronic mail to jail authorities to facilitate the petitioner's release from prison without any delay.

Arrest has become a plaything for police: HC Slams Chitradurga police inspector

In another case, the Bench came down heavily on the Inspector of Chitradurga Women Police Station for arresting the brother of a probationary police sub-inspector.

The probationary officer stood accused in a false-promise-to-marry case. However, the police also arrested his brother, despite the brother not being directly tied to the alleged crime.

Justice Nagaprasanna remarked that the police were “playing with the law” and misusing their powers of arrest.

“Whatever may have happened to accused No.1 (main accused), who is not to be seen, how accused No.2 (brother of main accused), who is not even connected, can be taken to prison? Are you playing? Are you policemen or what? Did second accused make the promise? Why did you put him in jail? What is his mistake?” the Court asked the investigating officer.

The Court termed the arrest a misuse of law.

“This is misuse of law. Arrest has become a playful thing for all you policemen here. You know the consequence of arrest. It is a tag all over his life."

The Bench indicated that it was inclined to impose costs of ₹1 lakh on the officer concerned for the illegal arrest, adding that the amount should be paid from the officer’s own pocket. However, the Court eventually agreed to let off the officer with a warning.

“Because of the SPP (B N Jagadeesh), I am sparing you. Otherwise, now itself I would have asked to suspend you,” the Court said.

The judge added that if he came across any similar conduct by the police officers in future, it would direct the Secretary to place such officers under suspension.

"Every officer would violate the law like this, to arrest persons without any rhyme or reasons. Definitely, the power of arrest is misused," the Bench observed.

Questioning the justification for the arrest offered in an affidavit filed by the police, the Bench noted that the allegation against the second accused was only that of harbouring an offender, which is a bailable offence.

"What is the allegation against him? Harbouring the offender? That does not mean he should be taken into custody,' the Court remarked.

The Bench also criticised magistrates for mechanically granting remand orders.

“These magistrates - straight away giving remand orders is their job. That is another thing I want to observe. It is all non-application of mind. They have the power even not to grant remand. That is the first filter. Why would they come here if the first filter is appropriately acted upon?” the Court said.

The Court observed that departmental proceedings should be initiated against the police officers responsible for the illegal arrest. It, however, eventually adjourned the matter for further consideration till July 2.