Karnataka High Court slams ‘police raj’, imposes ₹3 lakh costs on Whitefield police for illegal arrest

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday came down heavily on Whitefield police for arresting a man illegally [KN Mohan Reddy vs State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the police issued a notice to the man to appear for investigation but before he could do so, they picked him up from his house.

Such conduct by the police amounted to taking a citizen’s liberty for granted, the judge said.

The Court declared the arrest as "illegal" and imposed ₹3 lakh costs on the investigating officer and his superior officers.

The single-judge also directed that a departmental inquiry be initiated against those responsible for the arrest.

“Stop this police raj. Otherwise, we will have to stop it by iron hands,” Justice Nagaprasanna cautioned.

The Court said the conduct of the police was not merely attributable to the Investigating Officer (IO) but also raised questions regarding the supervisory responsibility of the entire police hierarchy.

“It is not only the investigating officer who is responsible for this atrocious act of taking the liberty of a citizen for granted. The entire police station is equally responsible,” the Court observed.

The Court stayed further investigation against the petitioner. KN Mohan Reddy, who was accused in a case concerning a forged will.

The Court observed that he was only an attesting witness to the document and that the underlying dispute was essentially civil in nature.

The case concerned offences of criminal conspiracy, forgery of a will, forging of document and using it as genuine

According to the Court, Reddy had been issued a notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on August 25, directing him to appear before the Whitefield police on August 27 at 11:00 AM for the purpose of investigation.

Section 35(3) 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.

However, despite the notice, the police arrested him from his residence on the morning of August 25.

Reddy then moved the High Court on August 25.

The High Court heard the matter on an urgent basis and ordered his release the very same day.

The Court remarked during the hearing that once a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued, arrest would follow only if the noticee fails to cooperate with the investigation.

In light of the illegal arrest, the judge ordered the IO to be present before the Court on the next hearing date on August 27.

When the matter was taken up on August 27, the Court asked the IO, Sunil Kumar, whether he had received any orders to arrest Reddy or was facing any external pressure.

The judge specifically questioned the role of the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police supervising the Whitefield police station.

The Court said it would impose costs which would be taken from the pocket of the investigating officer and not the State exchequer.

Public money cannot be used to compensate for an arrest carried out contrary to law, the judge said.

State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha submitted that the IO had made a mistake due to his inexperience.

He prayed that the proposed costs and departmental inquiry be dropped.

However, the Court said the IO must take accountability for his mistake and imposing costs would deter similar instances.

The Court ultimately declared the arrest of the petitioner illegal, imposed ₹3 lakh costs on the police officers involved and ordered initiation of departmental proceedings against the IO and supervisory officers found responsible.

It also stayed further investigation against the petitioner, while clarifying that the interim order would not extend to others accused in the ongoing forgery dispute.

The matter will be heard next on September 3.

[Read Order]