SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3615

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
N. HARINATH, J
KESSIREDDY RAJASEKHAR REDDY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates:
A P REDDY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following Order:

1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was issued a notice under Section , 179 of the B NSS (Section 160 Cr.PC) for appearance with regard to Crime No.21 of 2024, which is registered under Sections 409, 420, 120 ( B ) of the IPC. The CID Police Station, Mangalgiri,required the attendance of the petitioner on 28.03.2025 at 10:00 AM at the SITOffice, Office of Commissioner of Police,Vijayawada,without fail, for the purpose of investigation.

2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that such a notice could not have been issued by the CID police to the petitioner, who resides in Hyderabad at Jubilee Hills.

Section 179 of BNSS reads as follows:

“179. Police officer’s power to require attendance of witnesses – (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjourning station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and such person shall attend as so required:

Provided that no male person u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top