The Karnataka High Court has strongly criticised the police for what it described as “police raj”, declaring the arrest of a person in connection with a disputed Will to be illegal. The Court imposed ₹3 lakh in personal costs on the Investigating Officer and superior police officials for supervisory dereliction.
Background Of The Case
The petitioner was arraigned as accused No. 2 in a case concerning a disputed Will and documents relating to immovable property. His role was that of an attesting witness to the Will.
The police issued him a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, directing him to appear before the investigating officer on August 27, 2026.
However, the police allegedly took him into custody on August 25 itself, immediately after serving the notice, without giving him an opportunity to comply with it.
Court Declares Arrest Illegal
Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the arrest was plainly illegal.
The Court observed that once a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS has been issued, arrest can ordinarily follow only where the person fails to cooperate with the investigation.
In the present case, the time fixed for the petitioner’s appearance had not even arrived when he was arrested. The Court therefore held that his personal liberty had been unlawfully curtailed.
‘Stop This Police Raj’
The Court strongly criticised the manner in which the arrest was carried out and questioned why the police had arrested the attesting witness while leaving the beneficiary of the disputed Will, who had been arrayed as accused No. 1.
The Court expressed concern over the practice of taking citizens into custody without adequate legal justification and stressed that such conduct must be stopped.
Police Cannot Interfere In Civil Disputes Without Criminality
The High Court also observed that the dispute appeared, on the face of it, to be predominantly civil in nature, involving a decades-old disputed Will and property.
The Court noted that merely being an attesting witness to an instrument does not justify subjecting a person to criminal investigation without a legally sustainable basis of criminality.
Superior Officers Also Held Responsible
The Court made it clear that responsibility for an illegal arrest does not rest solely with the Investigating Officer.
It held that the entire police station and superior officers responsible for supervision could be accountable where they permit an investigating officer to act contrary to law.
The Court therefore directed that the ₹3 lakh cost should not be paid from the State exchequer. Instead, the amount was to be recovered from the concerned police officials personally. The Court also directed initiation of departmental proceedings against the responsible officers.
Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court:
Declared the petitioner’s arrest illegal;
Imposed ₹3 lakh personal costs on the Investigating Officer and responsible superior officials;
Directed that the amount should not come from public funds;
Directed initiation of departmental proceedings;
Granted an interim stay of further proceedings against the petitioner/accused No. 2; and
Clarified that the stay would not extend to accused No. 1
Significance Of The Judgment
The ruling reinforces that:
Police cannot mechanically arrest a person after issuing a Section 35(3) BNSS notice.
Arrest must be supported by legally permissible grounds.
Personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
Police machinery should not be used to intervene in essentially civil disputes without established criminality.
Senior police officers can face personal consequences for supervisory failures.
Illegal police action cannot automatically be compensated from the public exchequer.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court’s order sends a strong message that the power to arrest cannot be exercised mechanically or as a means of exerting pressure on citizens. By imposing personal costs on the Investigating Officer and his superiors, the Court emphasised that unlawful deprivation of liberty must carry individual accountability and cannot simply be treated as an expense of the State.
