The Karnataka High Court has strongly criticized police officers for making arrests in violation of established legal principles, warning that wearing a police uniform does not give officers the authority to disregard the law. The Court observed that the power of arrest is increasingly being misused and emphasized that arrest should never become a routine or mechanical exercise.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna directed the immediate release of a man who had been arrested in a forgery case registered on a complaint filed by his wife. The Court also ordered a departmental inquiry against the investigating officer attached to the Bagalur Police Station.

Expressing strong disapproval of the arrest, the Court remarked that sending a person to jail is not a “plaything” and questioned whether police officers believed that merely having a uniform entitled them to act without following legal procedures.

The case arose from an FIR registered in December 2025 alleging that a husband had forged his wife's signature to create a partnership deed and open a current bank account without her knowledge.

The accused argued that despite the FIR being registered, no meaningful investigation was carried out for more than three months. Subsequently, after a change in the investigating officer, the accused was suddenly arrested on the allegation that he had failed to cooperate with the investigation.

The High Court found that the first investigating officer had conducted virtually no investigation for several months. It further noted that the new Station House Officer showed unusual urgency in the matter and arrested the accused without sufficient legal justification.

Referring to settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that arrest should be the last resort, particularly in cases where the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Court found no compelling reason for the arrest except a vague assertion of non-cooperation.

Consequently, the Court directed the competent authority to initiate a departmental inquiry against the concerned Station House Officer and submit a report within twelve weeks. It also ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the previous investigating officer for failing to conduct a proper investigation after registration of the FIR.

To ensure immediate compliance, the Registry was directed to communicate the order electronically to jail authorities so that the accused could be released without delay.

“Arrest Has Become a Plaything for Police”

In another matter, the High Court sharply criticized the Inspector of the Chitradurga Women Police Station for arresting the brother of a probationary police sub-inspector accused in a false-promise-to-marry case.

The Court noted that while the main accused was not available, the police proceeded to arrest his brother despite there being no direct allegation connecting him to the alleged offence.

Questioning the legality of the arrest, Justice Nagaprasanna asked how a person who had not made any promise to the complainant could be sent to prison merely because he was related to the principal accused.

The Court observed that police officers were “playing with the law” and that arrest had become a “playful thing” for many officers. It stressed that an arrest carries lifelong consequences and cannot be treated casually.

Although the Court indicated that it was inclined to impose costs of ₹1 lakh on the concerned officer and recover the amount personally from him, it ultimately refrained from doing so after submissions made by the State Public Prosecutor and instead issued a stern warning.

The Court further cautioned that if similar conduct is noticed in future, it may direct the suspension of the officers concerned.

The High Court also expressed concern over magistrates routinely granting remand orders without proper scrutiny.

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that magistrates serve as the first safeguard against unlawful arrests and have the authority to refuse remand when the legal requirements are not satisfied. The Court remarked that many remand orders appear to be passed without adequate application of mind, thereby weakening an important judicial check on police powers.

The matter has been adjourned for further consideration, and the Court indicated that departmental proceedings against the officers involved in the illegal arrest may still be pursued.