S.51 BNSS | How Can Blood Samples Be Taken Without Arrest?: Karnataka High Court Questions State In 'Ellavoma' Drug Bust Case

Last week, the Karnataka High Court raised eyebrows over an alleged discrepancy in the manner in which biological samples were taken from an accused in the 'Ellavoma' Farm Raid back in May 2025.

The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna was hearing a quashing petition filed by one of the accused, a woman from Bengaluru, in the case pending before Special Court for NDPS Cases.

The charges levelled against the accused-petitioner include Sections 20(b), 22(a), and 27(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 292, 296, 3(5), and 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

“Without arrest, how did you conduct a medical examination. If you have arrested, what are the grounds of arrest? And if you have not arrested, how did you take blood samples? At least an arrest memo should be there. If they have taken her to custody and released her, there should be some procedure…”, the court orally observed referring to Section 51 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

For context, Section 51 BNSS prescribes the procedure for examination of an accused by a medical practitioner, at the request of police officer.

Accordingly, the State is required to produce documents indicating the trail of taking the accused-petitioner into custody. The matter has been posted to 23^rd March for now.

According to the State, the Police had recovered hashish, cocaine, hydroponic ganja and other narcotic substances from the raid. According to the petitioner's counsel, none was recovered from her.

The petitioner's counsel, advocates Abhimanyu Devaiah and Akhil Atiq, argued that the petitioner has not been served with the grounds of arrest or arrest memo. The counsel also added that Section 51 BNSS underscores that medical examination can be conducted only on a person who has been arrested within the confines of the law.

During the raid, the police rightly conducted the body search, acceded the petitioners. However, the procedural rigours would apply when it comes to the securing and examination of body samples by medical practitioners, at the request of police officers, they added.

No contraband was recovered from the person of the petitioner. Her name doesn't find a place in the seizure mahazar as well, the counsel argued.

On 25.05.2025, the petitioner, who was allegedly a guest at the birthday party, was taken into 'custody' and 'released on the same day'. But to show the arrest of the accused-petitioner, no documents are available, added the counsel.

The State responded that the accused, one among the 31 persons detained, was taken into custody, her statements were recorded, and an FIR was drawn. After medical examination, she was released; blood and urine samples were sent for FSL, said the government advocate.

The High Court is now set to examine whether the absence of an arrest memo can invalidate the extraction of body samples, constituting an important issue in the criminal procedure parlance.

Case Title: Smt. Eman Abbas Topiwala vs. State of Karnataka

Case No: Crl. P. 3020/2026