A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the Karnataka government's challenge to the judgement dated July 15, 2026, passed by a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court.

“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment/order of the High Court. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed,” the bench observed.

The respondent, a homestay owner, was arrested on April 19, 2026, in relation to a an alleged rape of a US national who stayed at the homestay in Coorg.

He was released on bail after remaining in judicial custody for 13 days, till May 2, 2026.

Aggrieved by the FIR and his arrest, the respondent had approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR and investigation. The High Court declined to quash the FIR or interfere with the investigation, holding that it could continue. However, it held the respondent's arrest to be illegal and directed the State to pay him Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana.

Why Karnataka High Court Held Arrest Illegal

Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted that although Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), relating to rape, was invoked, the allegation itself did not attribute any overt act constituting rape to the petitioner. The petitioner was admittedly not present at the spot when the alleged offence occurred. The other offences initially invoked against him, Sections 238, 239 and 351 BNS, were non-cognizable.

The Court further found that Section 3(5) BNS, which embodies the principle of common intention, was added only at the stage of seeking remand. Importantly, the provision does not create an independent substantive offence. It merely attributes liability to persons who share the common intention behind a criminal act. Therefore, Section 3(5), by itself, could not provide a legal foundation for arrest when the underlying offences were non-cognizable.

The Court also took serious note of the manner of arrest. The petitioner was picked up on the evening of April 18, 2026, detained overnight and formally arrested at 5 AM on April 19. He was produced before the Magistrate only at 11:30 PM the following day.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in D.K. Basu, Arnesh Kumar, Mohammed Zubair and Satender Kumar Antil, the Court reiterated that arrest cannot be treated as a routine investigative measure. Even where the power to arrest exists, the investigating officer must independently satisfy himself that arrest is necessary, based on objective material and after due application of mind.

The High Court concluded that the petitioner's liberty had been curtailed "without any discernible justification" and without adherence to statutory safeguards. It consequently declared the arrest illegal and directed the State to pay ₹5 lakh compensation. The Court, however, declined to quash the FIR, permitting the investigation to continue.

Subsequently, the Karnataka government filed a petition stating that the matter constitutes a fit case for challenge before the Supreme Court in so far as the award of compensation is concerned.

It was contended that the arrest and subsequent remand to judicial custody followed due procedure under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and that the main premise based on which the Hon'ble High Court had passed the impugned order falls flat.

It also argued that the FIR disclosed joint accusations under Sections 64(1), 238, 239 and 351 BNS against both accused without demarcating their individual roles, and that the High Court ought to have considered “the statutory regime applicable to cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years.”

On the threshold for public-law compensation, it argued that the High Court erred in equating the alleged illegality of the arrest with an automatic entitlement to compensation under Article 21. Relying on Sube Singh, the State submitted that compensation is warranted only where the violation is “patent and incontrovertible and gross enough to shock the conscience of the Court”. It also contended that the present case, involving 13 days of custody during investigation of a serious cognizable offence, with no finding of custodial death, sutodial torture, medical injury, visible bodily injury or loss of livelihood, did not meet that threshold.

On the above grounds, the Karnataka government sought a stay of the High Court's order pending the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Advocate Abhay Choudhary M, appearing for caveator (respondent), submitted before the bench that the chargesheet was filed only in respect of Section 239, and that the chargesheet itself had been challenged and quashed by the High Court.

On this, Justice Vikram Nath orally observed that once the chargesheet stands quashed, there was nothing left to be gone into.

Case: State of Karnataka v Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal (SLP (Crl) No. 16734/2026)

Appearance:

For Appellants: Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR, Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv.; Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv.; Ms. Oorja Goel, Adv.

For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR; Mr. Abhay Choudhary M, Adv; Mr. Angad Kamath, Adv.