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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12525

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
MOHAMMED RAFI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5750 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM, SHRI.DEEPAK P. R.
For the Respondents: ADV.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE

The investigation of a suspect by police is not harassment if conducted in compliance with legal procedures.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks a direction against harassment by police, citing procedural compliance for residential entry after sunset (para 1). The court identifies the petitioner as a crime suspect; police actions in this regard cannot be termed harassment, emphasizing the need for adhering to Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (para 3-5). Ultimately, the court directs the respondents to issue notice if the petitioner is sought for investigation (last para).

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for protection against harassment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. police actions justified due to criminal suspicion. (Para 3 , 4)
3. directive for police compliance with legal procedures. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks a direction that he and his family members shall not be harassed, and that all actions be taken, strictly in compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements, and that no entry be made into his residence after sunset without adhering to the mandatory procedures established by law.

2. According to the petitioner, he is an entrepreneur, who is facing repeated harassment from the police without any basis. The petitioner alleges that he and his friends had actually participated in the local authorities election, that too against the ruling party, which has invited enmity and vengeance with various persons, including the police, as a result of which, he is being constantly harassed.

3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner is a suspect in a crime, and that the police have never harassed him. It was submitted that, since he has been absconding, they have not even been able to serve notice and that there are serious allegations against the accused relating to a crime. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner is suspected of harboring individuals already named as accused in the crime; and consequently, any action taken by the police against the petitioner in the course of the investigation cannot be regarded as harassment.

4. Heard Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George, the learned Government Pleader.

5. The petitioner is a suspect in a crime. The investigation conducted by the police into a crime cannot be termed as harassment. However, if the petitioner is required for any investigative purposes, the police have to issue a notice in accordance with Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023. Repeated visits to the petitioner’s residence that too, after sunset cannot be legally permitted, in the absence of compliance with the prescribed legal procedures.

In view of the above, there will be a direction to the respondents to issue notice under Section 35 , to the petitioner if he is wanted for the purpose of investigating into any crime.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

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 Back to top