Disposed¶51

Manjunath N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2026WP/24008/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police harassment; unlawful summoning and detention at police station; rowdy sheeter; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; writ petition (GM-Police); High Court of Karnataka; undertaking by jurisdictional Inspector of Police; personal liberty; abuse of police power; Sheshadripuram PS; CCB; Manjunath N v. State of Karnataka; no coercive action without due process.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings closed, recording the jurisdictional officer's undertaking that the petitioner will not hereafter be summoned to the police station in the absence of any lawful requirement or pending criminal proceedings and that no coercive or intrusive measures will be adopted except in accordance with due process of law; liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in the event of any further infraction. ¶51

Manjunath N Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent police officers could lawfully summon the petitioner to the police station and detain him there for the entire day without any valid reason or legal sanction. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The explanations offered by the officer are afterthoughts lacking legal justification, indicative of a casual and high-handed exercise of police powers which the Court cannot countenance.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

A perceived threat to an individual's life must be addressed strictly in accordance with law by providing appropriate protection, not by unwarranted restraint and confinement within a police station; the threat-based explanation was untenable and bore the trappings of misuse of authority.

¶31

Key takeaways

Even assuming the petitioner is a rowdy sheeter, the exercise of police power must conform to established legal procedure; arbitrary or routine summoning and detention for prolonged hours without any proceedings known to law is impermissible.ratio¶38
Police power is coupled with a corresponding duty to act fairly, reasonably and strictly within the bounds of law; actions impinging upon the personal liberty of a citizen without authority of law amount to an abuse of power.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — petitioner aggrieved by the jurisdictional police repeatedly summoning him to the police station and making him remain there for the entire day after each appearance before the criminal court, without valid reason or legal sanction. The jurisdictional Inspector, appearing on the Court's direction, admitted the detentions, attributing them to an alleged threat to the petitioner's life (based on information said to have been received from respondent No.2) and, on one occasion, to a rowdy-sheet review. The Court held that a perceived threat must be met with lawful protection, not confinement in a police station; that even a rowdy sheeter cannot be arbitrarily or routinely summoned or detained for prolonged hours without proceedings known to law; and that the explanations were afterthoughts reflecting a casual and high-handed exercise of police power amounting to an abuse of power and harassment. Recording the officer's undertaking that the petitioner will not henceforth be summoned absent lawful requirement or pending criminal proceedings and that no coercive measures will be adopted except per due process, the writ petition stood disposed of, with liberty reserved to seek remedy on any further infraction.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:16547 WP No. 24008 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 24008 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJUNATH N C/O NARASIMHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A NO.27, 3RD MAIN ROAD JCW NAGAR, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560020

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAKSHITH R..,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHESHADRIPURAM PS REP BY AGA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

CCB REP BY AGA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560001

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TODIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO NOT HARASS THE PETITIONER BY SUMMONING HIM TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT ANY VALID REASON AND TO NOT TAKE ANY COERCIVE ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:16547 WP No. 24008 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In the captioned petition, petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the action of the respondent/police officers in unnecessarily summoning petitioner to the police station without any valid reason. Therefore, the captioned petition is filed seeking appropriate directions not to harass petitioner by summoning him to the police station.

¶24

On the previous date of hearing, this Court,

¶25

having adverted to the specific allegations and grounds urged in the writ petition, more particularly the serious grievance voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on every date of appearance before the jurisdictional Criminal Court, the petitioner, after marking his presence

¶26

in the criminal proceedings, was being forcibly taken by the jurisdictional police to the police station and was made to remain seated therein for the entire day without any

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16547 WP No. 24008 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

justifiable cause or legal sanction, had directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to secure instructions and ensure the presence of the concerned Police Officer before this Court.

¶30

Pursuant to the said direction, the jurisdictional Inspector of Police appeared before this Court and, on instructions, fairly admitted that the petitioner was indeed taken to the police station on certain occasions. However, an attempt was made to justify such action on the ground that there was an alleged threat to the life of the petitioner based on information said to have been received from respondent No.2, and therefore, as a measure purportedly

¶31

taken in the interest of the petitioner’s safety, he was brought to the police station. This explanation, on the face of it, appears wholly untenable and raises serious concerns, as any perceived threat to an individual’s life ought to have been addressed strictly in accordance with law by providing appropriate protection, and not by subjecting the individual to unwarranted restraint and

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:16547 WP No. 24008 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

confinement within the precincts of a police station, which

¶36

prima facie bears the trappings of misuse of authority.

¶37

The second justification offered by the officer

¶38

that the petitioner is a “rowdy sheeter” and was summoned to the police station on one occasion for the purpose of reviewing his rowdy sheet status, also does not inspire confidence. Even assuming such status, the exercise of power by the police must conform to established legal procedure and cannot be permitted to degenerate into arbitrary or routine summoning, much less into a practice of detaining the petitioner for prolonged hours without any proceedings known to law.

¶39

The explanations offered, therefore, appear to be more in the nature of an afterthought, lacking in legal justification, and indicative of a casual and highhanded exercise of police powers, which this Court cannot countenance.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:16547 WP No. 24008 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

This Court is constrained to observe that the

¶44

power vested in the police is coupled with a corresponding duty to act fairly, reasonably, and strictly within the bounds of law. Any deviation therefrom, particularly actions that impinge upon the personal liberty of a citizen without authority of law, would amount to an abuse of power. The conduct admitted by the officer, even if confined to a few instances, reflects a pattern that borders on harassment and unwarranted interference with the petitioner’s liberty.

¶45

However, in view of the statement now made by the officer before this Court that the petitioner will not hereafter be summoned to the police station in the absence of any lawful requirement or pending criminal proceedings, and that no coercive or intrusive measures will be adopted except in accordance with due process of

¶46

law, this Court deems it appropriate to close the proceedings, while placing on record the said undertaking.

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:16547 WP No. 24008 of 2025

¶48

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Accordingly, recording the statement and

¶51

undertaking of the jurisdictional officer, the writ petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in the event of any further infraction.

¶52

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶53

CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Manjunath N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fellowship of Udupi District Churches Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Dayanand Madhu Shetty Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Yadehalli Sports Club Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Academy Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Ravindra Kumar B Vs the State of Karnataka