Arrest for non-cognizable offences without statutory compliance is illegal and warrants constitutional compensation.

The petitioner is the manager of "Devi Villa Homestay" in Kodagu, Karnataka

A US citizen (Respondent No. 2) stayed at the homestay in April 2026

She alleged that on April 12, 2026, a housekeeper (Accused No. 1) served her drugged juice and raped her while she was drowsy

At the time of the alleged incident, the petitioner (Accused No. 2) was not present

An FIR was registered on April 18, 2026, under Sections 64(1) (rape), 238 (disappearing evidence), and 239 (omission to give information) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Despite the petitioner not being accused of the overt act of rape, the police arrested him on April 19, 2026, and later added Section 3(5) (common intention) to the remand application

The petitioner challenged the FIR and sought a declaration that his arrest was illegal, along with compensation of ₹15,00,000

The Court applied Section 64 (rape) and Sections 238, 239, 351, and 3(5) (common intention) of the BNS

It heavily relied on the procedural safeguards for arrest under Sections 41 and 41-A of the CrPC/BNSS and Article 21 of the Constitution

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, emphasizing that personal liberty is a sacred right

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which mandates that arrest for offences punishable with less than seven years should not be automatic and requires a notice of appearance

Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which demands judicial scrutiny of the "necessity" of arrest

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, establishing the public law remedy of compensation for violation of fundamental rights

The Court observed that while the investigation into the rape (Section 64) against Accused No. 1 must continue, the petitioner was not present during the act and was only charged with non-cognizable offences (Sections 238, 239, 351) or vicarious liability (Section 3(5))

The police arrested the petitioner for "custodial interrogation" without complying with the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, which require recorded reasons for necessity and a prior notice under Section 41-A for offences with sentences under seven years

The Court found that the police acted with "reflexive" and "mechanical" instinct rather than legal justification

It held that the pressure of a foreign consulate's involvement does not permit the State to barter away the fundamental rights of its citizens

Consequently, while the FIR was not quashed to allow the unearthing of facts, the deprivation of the petitioner's liberty was found to be a "blatant infraction" of Article 21

Declared the petitioner’s arrest illegal for violation of BNS/BNSS procedural mandates and Supreme Court guidelines

The Court awarded the petitioner ₹5,00,000 in compensation, payable by the State within four weeks, while reserving his right to seek further damages in a civil court