In a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the detenue, the Karnataka High Court found that the detenue, a Bengaluru man, was illegally picked up and detained in custody at Gangammana Gudi Police Station from 14 October 2025 before an FIR was registered. The Division Bench declared the pre-FIR detention unlawful and violative of the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 and the statutory arrest procedures. The court ordered the State to pay Rs 2,00,000 in compensation along with Rs 50,000 in costs to the petitioner, granting liberty to recover the sums from the delinquent police officers following a departmental enquiry. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →By judgment dated 23 January 2026 in W.P.H.C. No. 113/2025, the Karnataka High Court (Coram: Anu Sivaraman, Vijaykumar A. Patil, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Police Sub-Inspector, Gangammana Gudi Police Station; Police Inspector, Gangammana Gudi Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Judgment dated 23 January 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Holding not recorded separately.
“It is declared that the arrest of the husband of the petitioner (detenue) from 14.10.2025 till the filing of the first information report is illegal and contrary to the procedure of arrest.” (para 16)
The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.
