The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Petitioner a Bengaluru man, an attesting witness to a disputed Will, was issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on 25 August 2026 directing him to appear for inquiry on 27 August 2026, but the Whitefield Police arrested him on the same day prior to the scheduled appearance date. The Karnataka High Court declared the arrest illegal and an abuse of coercive power, holding that Section 35(3) BNSS explicitly prohibits arrest of a noticee before the appearance date unless reasoned non-compliance occurs. The court imposed exemplary costs of Rs 3,00,000 payable directly to the petitioner personally by the Investigating Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Police, and Deputy Commissioner of Police rather than the State exchequer, and directed departmental scrutiny of the officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →By judgment dated 27 August 2026 in Criminal Petition No. 13117 of 2026, the Karnataka High Court (Coram: M. Nagaprasanna, J.) returned findings adverse to 3 police personnel, namely: Investigating Officer, Whitefield Police Station; Assistant Commissioner of Police, Whitefield Sub-Division; Deputy Commissioner of Police, Whitefield Division, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Judgment dated 27 August 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Holding not recorded separately.
“The costs are, therefore, quantified at `3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) and shall be paid to the petitioner by the Investigating Officer, the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police, who are responsible for directing, permitting or facilitating …” (para 22)
The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.
