APHC010113812026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6589/2026 Between:

G UDISE DEVANAND, ,S/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,OCC.BUSINESS, RIO D.NO. 11124/44, WATER TANK ROAD, KADIRI TOWN,SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237.

2. T HE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.515134

3. T HE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADIRI TOWN POLICE STATION, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 515591

4. D V NARAYANA REDDY, CIRCLE INSPECTOR KADIRI TOWN POLICE STATION, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.515591.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

ALA CHANDRASEKHAR YADAV Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents particularly Respondent No 4 in repeatedly summoning the Petitioner to the police station without issuing written notice as mandated under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 and in not implementing and complying with the statutory safeguards contemplated thereunder as well as in violation of the order dated 25 04 2025 passed in CRL P No 4545 of 2025 as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct Respondent No 3 to strictly adhere to and implement Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 and not to summon or require the presence of the Petitioner at Kadiri Town Police Station except in due compliance with law….”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3. Sri Ala Chandrasekhar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been unnecessarily harassing the petitioner by calling him to the police station, thereby subjecting him to inconvenience.

4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that, after a thorough investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet and that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment above seven years. The learned Magistrate, however, returned the charge sheet on the ground as to how it was maintainable without complying with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’. The alleged offences are under Sections 318(4) and 308(5) read with

3(5) of ‘the BNS’, as per the averments in the charge sheet.

5. When it is alleged that the petitioner has committed offences punishable with imprisonment above seven years, there is no requirement for issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’. The petitioner ought to have filed a petition under Section 438 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’ for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge. If the merits so require, he ought to have filed a Criminal Petition seeking quashment of the proceedings.

6. The petitioner cannot file a Writ Petition seeking a direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Investigating Officer not to call or summon him or require his presence at the Kadiri Town Police Station. The Investigating Officer is placed in a delicate situation, as the charge sheet has been returned by the learned Magistrate for compliance with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’, whereas the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment above seven years and, therefore, no notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’ is required.

7. In view of the above, the petitioner is required to approach the appropriate forum, either before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 438 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 482 of ‘the BNSS’ or this Court under Se