Bengaluru, August 29: The Karnataka High Court has declared the arrest of a petitioner illegal and imposed exemplary costs of ₹3 lakh on the police officers found responsible for the unlawful action, stressing that the statutory power to arrest cannot be treated as an unrestricted licence to take a person into custody.
The court made the observations while dealing with Criminal Petition No. 13117/2026, in which it examined the circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s arrest.
The High Court observed that the investigating officer could not escape responsibility merely because the illegality of the arrest was subsequently recorded on paper. It held that the circumstances warranted not only exemplary costs but also departmental scrutiny of the role played by supervisory officers who either permitted, directed or failed to prevent the arrest.
‘A notice to appear tomorrow cannot become a licence to arrest today’
The court took particular exception to the fact that the petitioner had been issued a notice requiring appearance on a future date, yet was arrested before the date on which compliance with the notice was due.
The High Court observed that an arrest carried out before the obligation to comply with the notice had arisen could not find protection merely under the statutory framework.
In strong terms, the court stated:
“A notice to appear tomorrow cannot become a licence to arrest today. The State cannot command compliance with one hand and extinguish the opportunity to comply with the other.”
The court accordingly held that the arrest was illegal.
Responsibility extends beyond the investigating officer
The court further held that responsibility for an unlawful arrest could not conveniently be confined only to the officer who physically effected the arrest.
According to the order, a police station does not function as an island of individual discretion. The Station House Officer and the supervisory hierarchy, including the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police, have a solemn responsibility to ensure that coercive powers are exercised strictly within the four corners of law.
The court observed that if an investigating officer was permitted to issue a notice directing a person to appear on a future date and nevertheless proceeded to arrest that person before the date, then the supervisory machinery was either unaware of what had transpired or, worse, had permitted it.
The court made it clear that neither possibility was comforting.
‘Supervision cannot be ornamental’
The High Court also underlined the importance of effective supervision in matters involving personal liberty.
It observed that a senior police officer cannot remain a silent spectator while a subordinate officer treats a statutory safeguard as dispensable paperwork and subsequently seek shelter behind the individual act of the investigating officer.
The record, the court noted, attributed responsibility not merely to the investigating officer but also to the supervisory dereliction of those manning the police station.
The court emphasised that supervisory responsibility becomes particularly important when the exercise of police powers directly affects an individual’s personal liberty.
₹3 lakh exemplary costs ordered
While declaring the arrest illegal, the court went beyond merely recording the illegality.
It questioned who should bear the financial consequences of an unlawful act, observing that such compensation or exemplary costs should not routinely be taken from the public exchequer when the wrongdoing is attributable to individual public servants.
The court remarked that making the taxpayer bear the financial burden of an unlawful act committed by a public servant would lead to the unusual situation of “the citizen compensating the citizen for an illegality committed by an errant public servant.”
Accordingly, the court quantified the costs at ₹3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs only) and directed that the amount be paid to the petitioner by the Investigating Officer, the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who were found responsible for directing, permitting or facilitating the unlawful action.
The ruling sends a strong message that the power of arrest must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and cannot be used to defeat statutory safeguards or personal liberty.
The High Court’s observations also place responsibility on the police supervisory hierarchy to ensure that unlawful arrests do not take place under their watch.
