‘Stop this Police Raj’: High Court orders Bengaluru cop to pay Rs 3 lakh for illegal arrest

The allegation against Reddy is that he, along with co-accused (Vishal Baliga), who is said to be the beneficiary of the will dated January 10, 1994, forged it along with other documents. The complainant, Jawahar Gopal, is contesting the will’s genuineness before a civil court, and its adjudication is pending.

Advocate Anagad Kamath, appearing for Reddy, said the police officer, on August 25, visited the house of the petitioner and served him a notice to appear before the police two days later. However, the police later arrested him and produced him before the magistrate court, seeking the court to send Reddy to judicial custody.

Kamath said, “The case is based on documents, and adjudication is pending before a competent court. The police officer acted contrary to law in arresting the accused.” On Tuesday, Kamath had mentioned the matter before the High Court for urgent hearing, and the court passed an interim order of stay on arrest. Following this, the magistrate court did not remand the accused in custody.

Supreme Court precedent

Justice Nagaprasanna referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2026), wherein the court held that once procedural law is set in motion by issuing notice, the only circumstances in which one can be taken into custody are non-cooperation by the accused.

The bench in its order said, “Liberty of Reddy was taken away by the police and the officer who is present before the court has no answer as to why he took the accused into custody, whether his official superiors pressurised him or otherwise; there is no answer to the query of this court.”

Further, the bench said, “It is not only the investigating officer who would be responsible for this atrocious act on their part for taking the liberty of citizens for granted and taking him into custody; the entire police station is equally responsible. The officer in charge of the police station, or the superiors who man the police station, including the ACP and DCP, who have just let the officer behave in a manner contrary to law. They are equally responsible for their supervisory dereliction.”

Accordingly, the court held the arrest of petitioner (Reddy) to be illegal and said “Investigating officer (IO) is mulct with a cost of Rs 3 lakh to be paid by IO and official superiors to the petitioner, who have shown dereliction of supervisory duty upon IO. The cost amount shall not be paid from the state exchequer, as it is public money. Since the IO has acted contrary to law, the cost shall be paid from his pocket, or the cost shall be paid from the pockets of those who man the police station.”