The Court docket was listening to a plea to declare the August 25 arrest of a person unlawful.
Advocate Angad Kamath represented the arrested man (petitioner) and submitted that he was picked up from his residence by the Whitefield police on Tuesday morning. This was regardless of him being served with a discover beneath Part 35(3) BNSS requiring his look solely on August 27.
Kamath submitted that the petitioner had already been produced earlier than the jurisdictional Justice of the Peace and remand proceedings had been underway.
Based on the petitioner, the one allegation in opposition to him was that he was a signatory to a will which one other particular person claimed was cast. The dispute stemmed from a long-pending civil litigation between two households, the petitioner mentioned.
“Civil litigation has been pending for 16 years. Regardless of a BNSS discover asking me to look on August 27, I used to be picked up from my home this morning and brought into custody,” Kamath submitted.
The Court docket held that the arrest gave the impression to be unlawful on the face of it.
“The discover issued to the petitioner admittedly directed him to look earlier than the police for the aim of investigation on August 27, 2026, which date is but to come back. However the petitioner is taken into custody, which act on the face of it’s unlawful,” its order recorded.
