Bengaluru: In a significant ruling reinforcing procedural safeguards, the high court Friday held that collecting a blood sample without a lawful arrest is impermissible, and any such evidence cannot be relied upon in prosecution.“Section 51 of BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), which governs medical examination, can be invoked only upon the existence of a lawful arrest,” observed Justice M Nagaprasanna. Emphasising strict adherence to due process, the court noted that a valid arrest requires compliance with statutory safeguards such as communicating the grounds of arrest, recording reasons, and following mandatory procedures. “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,” the judge added while allowing a petition filed by a 28-year-old woman.A resident of KR Pura, east Bengaluru, the petitioner was arraigned as accused no. 12 in the suo motu complaint lodged by Devanahalli police. It pertained to organising a birthday party without permission at a mansion known as “Ellavoma House” on Kannamangala Road. Between 30 and 35 persons are said to have gathered at the venue and were allegedly consuming intoxicating substances and alcohol between 9.30pm on May 24, 2025 and 7.15am on May 25, 2025. A case was registered for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and also sections 292, 296 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against the accused. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and released on the same day, after her blood sample was collected.Challenging the same, the petitioner argued that her mere presence at the venue would not constitute an offence and that no contraband was recovered from her. She added that her arrest itself was not lawful. On the other hand, police maintained that the petitioner had tested positive for cocaine consumption.However, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that in cases where offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the accused cannot be arrested strictly. There is no material to demonstrate that the arresting officer recorded any reasonable suspicion or credible information linking the petitioner to a cognisable offence. Thus, the petitioner’s alleged arrest appears to falter on fundamental grounds, the judge observed.The petitioner’s blood sample was obtained, in the absence of a lawful arrest, as the essential procedural safeguards and legal prerequisites governing arrest were neither observed nor complied with, rendering the purported arrest invalid in the eyes of the law, the judge pointed out.
