The Karnataka High Court stayed the FIR against Mohan Gowda and directed senior Whitefield police officers to appear in court over alleged misuse of Section 35(3) BNSS.
About the Case
Sri Mohan Gowda v. State of Karnataka & Anr., WP No. 25680/2026, concerns the alleged failure of Whitefield Police to follow the notice-before-arrest safeguard under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The matter was heard by Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court after Mohan Gowda challenged the police action taken against him.
The case arose after Gowda, the state organiser of the Hindu Rashtra Samanvaya Samithi based in Udupi, expressed his support for the cancellation of comedian Kunal Kamra’s proposed show at Uru, Whitefield. The police subsequently registered an FIR against him under Sections 217 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Background of the Case
On August 1, 2026, Mohan Gowda and members of his organisation submitted a representation at Whitefield Police Station seeking cancellation of Kunal Kamra’s scheduled August 3 show at Uru, Whitefield. The representation cited concerns relating to communal harmony.
Kamra later announced on X that the show had been shifted to Koramangala. Following the announcement, Gowda published a Facebook post describing the cancellation as A Victory for Hindu Unity.
On August 4 at about 2:30 pm, an FIR was registered against Gowda under Section 217 and Section 353(2) of the BNS. The case was followed by a preliminary-enquiry notice under Section 173(2) of the BNSS, which was sent to Gowda through WhatsApp on the same date.
The dispute intensified when Gowda was brought from Udupi to Whitefield Police Station on August 6. He remained there until August 7, when he was released at about 2:15 pm after advocates intervened. Gowda was represented before the High Court by Advocate Girish Bharadwaj.
Facts of the Case
The sequence of events is central to the petition, particularly because of the timing of the Section 35(3) notice in relation to Gowda being taken into custody.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 1, 2026 | Gowda and organisation members submitted a representation seeking cancellation of Kunal Kamra’s Whitefield show. |
| August 3, 2026 | The proposed show at Uru, Whitefield, was shifted to Koramangala after Kamra announced the change. |
| August 4, 2026 | FIR registered at about 2:30 pm under BNS Sections 217 and 353(2). |
| August 4, 2026 | A BNSS Section 173(2) preliminary-enquiry notice was sent to Gowda through WhatsApp. |
| August 6, 2026 | Gowda was brought from Udupi to Whitefield Police Station. |
| August 7, 2026 | Gowda was released at about 2:15 pm after advocates intervened. |
According to the petitioner’s case, the formal notice contemplated by Section 35(3) BNSS, which provided a three-day window for appearance, was handed to him only after he had already been taken into custody. The challenge therefore focused on whether the statutory safeguard had been followed in the manner required by law.
The petitioner also questioned the manner in which the FIR was registered. It was alleged that the complaint was filed a day after the FIR had already been registered suo motu. Alongside the procedural challenge, Gowda’s case raised an issue concerning freedom of speech, with the contention that expressing happiness over the cancellation of a public event was protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Legal Issues Involved
The principal legal question concerned Section 35(3) of the BNSS. The provision requires police, in cases involving offences carrying punishment of up to seven years, to issue a formal notice of appearance rather than immediately proceeding to arrest.
Gowda’s case was that this safeguard was not followed because the Section 35(3) notice was allegedly given only after he was already in custody. The three-day period mentioned in the notice therefore became significant to the challenge against the police action.
The petition also raised questions regarding the regularity of the FIR and the constitutional protection available to the petitioner’s Facebook expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Judgment / Outcome
The Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay on the FIR registered against Gowda under Sections 217 and 353(2) of the BNS.
Justice M Nagaprasanna also directed the DCP, ACP and the officers involved in the matter to remain personally present before the court on August 29, 2026, at 2:30 pm.
The Court took a serious view of the manner in which the Section 35(3) safeguard had allegedly been handled by the Whitefield Police Station. It described the conduct as the station’s recurring modus operandi and observed that the Court had repeatedly seen the same violation from the station.
The Court further warned that if the DCP and ACP failed to appear, it would summon the Bengaluru Police Commissioner to set the house in order.
The order came only a day after another significant proceeding involving the same police station. In KN Mohan Reddy v. State of Karnataka, concerning a forged-will case, Justice M Nagaprasanna had found an identical misuse of Section 35(3). In that matter, the Court described the conduct as police raj and imposed costs of ₹3 lakh on the investigating officer and superior officers, along with directing a departmental inquiry.
Significance / Impact
The two proceedings within the same week place specific institutional pressure on the functioning of the Whitefield Police Station. Both matters involved the alleged failure to comply with the same statutory safeguard concerning notice before arrest under Section 35(3) BNSS.
The repeated judicial scrutiny is significant because Section 35(3) operates as a procedural protection against unnecessary or immediate arrest in offences carrying punishment of up to seven years. The allegation in both matters concerns the use of the notice mechanism after the person had already been taken into custody, bringing the sequence of police action directly before the High Court.
The proceedings also demonstrate the Court’s willingness to examine not only the individual FIR but the conduct of the police officers responsible for investigation. The direction requiring senior officers to appear personally, coupled with the warning concerning the Police Commissioner, indicates the institutional dimension of the Court’s concern.
Taken together, the two orders raise a broader question about judicial oversight of procedural safeguards designed to protect personal liberty during criminal investigation, particularly when similar allegations arise repeatedly from the same police station.
ALSO READ: Harish Salve: From Chartered Accountant to King’s Counsel
