Unlawful Arrest Vitiates Medical Exam Under BNSS: Karnataka High Court Quashes NDPS FIR Against Woman Over 'Ellavoma' Drug Raid

The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against a woman booked in an NDPS case concerning a raid conducted at a birthday party in Ellavoma Farm last May. 

In doing so the court noted that the arrest of the petitioner was unlawful and thus conduct of medical exam under Section 51 BNSS was vitiated. 

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

The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna held that Section 51 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the medical examination of an accused, can only be invoked following a 'lawful arrest' that complies with all statutory safeguards.

The court iterated that the legality of the power to conduct a medical examination on an accused depends entirely on 'the existence of a valid arrest'. Placing reliance on the SC judgments in Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP (2019) and Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar (2023), the court underscored that the investigating officer should record reasonable grounds demonstrating the necessity of medical examination at the time of 'lawful arrest'.

In its absence, the medical or biological examination cannot be conducted and subsequently relied upon in the prosecution case, the court held. It said:

“Section 51 of BNSS, which governs medical examination, can only be invoked upon the presence of a lawful arrest. In the absence of such arrest, the collection of blood samples are unlawful. The lawful arrest necessitates strict compliance with statutory safeguards including communication of grounds of arrest… Where a blood sample is produced pursuant to an illegal arrest, the resulting medical and forensic reports stand vitiated and cannot be relied on. The charge in the present case is founded upon the alleged consumption of a narcotic substance as inferred from the blood sample. Once the blood sample itself is illegally obtained, the substratum of the prosecution case fails. The criminal petition is allowed”.

 “The fulcrum of Section 27(b) (NDPS) is consumption. The fulcrum of providing such consumption is the blood sample. The legitimacy of such blood sample is contingent upon a lawful medical examination. The medical examination in turn, is governed by Section 51 of the BNSS, which can be set into motion, only upon the lawful arrest….”, the court said

The medical examination under Section 51 of the BNSS in the absence of such lawful arrest cannot be relied upon to continue the prosecution against the woman, the court concluded.

Previously, on March 16, the Karnataka High Court asked questions 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 quashing petition was filed by one of the accused, a woman from Bengaluru, in the case pending before the 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.

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 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. The court noted that since the alleged offences are punishable only with imprisonment for a term of less than 7 years, the police should have served a notice under Section 35 BNS instead of immediately taking the accused into custody.

On Propriety Of Arrest

There is no material to demonstrate that the arresting officer recorded any reasonable suspicion or credible information linking the petitioner to a cognizable offence. There is a conspicuous absence of any recorded reasons justifying the arrest and equally no evidence that the ground of arrest were even communicated to the petitioner….”, the court said.

The court took note of the submission made by the State that the petitioner-accused was arrested and released on the same day. The reasons for making an arrest, or, on the other hand, for issuing a notice instead of arrest, must be clearly mandated in accordance with the apex court guidelines in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the single-judge bench added.

Measured against the guidelines enunciated in apex court precedents, the arrest of the petitioner was improper and falters on the grounds of propriety, the court opined.

"There is neither record of reasons to believe nor articulation of necessity, nor communication of grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Arrest, in such circumstances, degenerates into empty ritual…. Arrest is not a fleeting administrative act; it is a profound intrusion upon personal liberty. It must be preceded by reason, accompanied by transparency and justified by necessity. The absence of these fundamental elements renders the so-called arrest a legal nullity”, Justice Nagaprasanna observed.

Accordingly, the plea was allowed, and the criminal case against the accused was quashed by the High Court.

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

Case No: Crl. P. 3020/2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 145