High Court Clarifies Pre-Arrest Notice Rules, Upholds Arrest in Evasion Case
The Karnataka High Court has elucidated the procedures police must adhere to before arresting an accused, while simultaneously rejecting a petition that sought to invalidate an arrest order on the grounds that no prior notice was issued. A single-judge bench led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna clarified that although serving a notice is mandatory before arresting an accused in cases punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment, police are not authorized to issue such notices or copies of the First Information Report (FIR) electronically, including via WhatsApp; physical delivery remains essential.
The court further specified a critical exception to this rule: if an accused deliberately evades police notice, absconds, and actively obstructs the investigation, direct arrest is permissible. In the particular case before the court, the petitioner-accused had intentionally moved through various locations, including Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu, for 40 days to avoid receiving the police notice. This fact was corroborated by call detail records. The bench considered this evasion to be non-cooperation and an attempt to circumvent the investigation, thereby legitimizing the arrest even without the complete formal process of serving a notice. The court affirmed that while Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) mandates physical delivery of notices as per Supreme Court directives, an accused's refusal to cooperate or accept the notice empowers the police to proceed with the arrest. The petitioner's 40-day evasion was deemed a clear instance where the police acted within their legal authority.
Source: CourtBeat News (Kannada)
.png)
