Medical examination in absence of lawful arrest impermissible under law: Karnataka High Court

'A lawful arrest necessitates strict compliance with statutory safeguards, including communication of the grounds of arrest, recording of reasons and adherence to all mandatory procedural requirements', Justice M Nagaprasanna said

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has said that a medical examination in the absence of a lawful arrest is impermissible in law. Justice M Nagaprasanna said this while holding the arrest of the petitioner in a case for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act as ‘patently illegal’.

“Section 51 of the BNSS, which governs medical examination, can be invoked only upon the existence of a lawful arrest. A lawful arrest necessitates strict compliance with statutory safeguards, including communication of the grounds of arrest, recording of reasons and adherence to all mandatory procedural requirements. Where a blood sample is produced pursuant to an illegal arrest, the resulting medical and forensic report stands vitiated and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution,” Justice Nagaprasanna said in his order.

The petitioner, a resident of KR Puram, in Bengaluru, was named as accused number 12 in a suo motu complaint by the Devanahalli police. The complaint is against organising a party without permission, on May 24 at a mansion near MVM School on Kannamangala Road. According to the complaint, participants had consumed intoxicating substances and hence a case was registered for offences under sections 20(b), 22(a) and 27(b) of the NDPS and BNS sections 292, 296 and 3(5).

The petitioner was arrested and released on the same day, after collecting the blood sample. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that no contraband substance was recovered from her and contended that the arrest itself was not lawful. On the other hand, the police submitted that the petitioner was tested positive for cocaine consumption, based on the medical test conducted after the arrest.

The court noted that 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, away from the discipline of law and bereft of Constitutional propriety. 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 said.

Insofar as the collection of petitioner's blood sample, in the absence of a lawful arrest, the court said the procedural safeguards and legal prerequisites governing arrest were neither observed nor complied with, rendering the purported arrest invalid in the eye of law. “The charge is solely founded upon the alleged consumption of a narcotic substance, as inferred from the blood sample. Once the blood sample itself is held to be illegally obtained, the very substratum of the prosecution case collapses; consequently, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the law and cannot be permitted,” the court said.