Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17149
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SUJANA, J
Shaik Ayyub – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9639 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri S.Ravi Kiran Reddy
For the Respondents: Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon
The Court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance by the Investigating Officer in pre-arrest situations under relevant statutes.
Headnote:The petition for pre-arrest bail was filed under FIR No.40 of 2025 for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 316(5), and 336(1) of BNS. The Court noted the absence of notice served under Section 35(3) of BNSS and required the Investigating Officer to adhere to the guidelines and procedures set forth. The main issues pertained to the procedural rights of the petitioner prior to arrest. The ruling directed the Investigating Officer to issue a notice and follow due process of law for the petitioner's cooperation and defense submission.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for pre-arrest bail filed. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding notice under bnss. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court emphasizes legal adherence by investigation officer. (Para 5) |
ORAL ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in connection with FIR No.40 of 2025 before the Gadiguda Police Station, Adilabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 336(1)
of BNS .
2. Heard Sri S.Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent – State.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that earlier this petitioner filed WP.No.21737 of 2025 wherein, this Court directed the respondents therein to serve notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS on the petitioner and to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with law, but when petitioner approached the investigating Officer, he was not served with notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS . Therefore, prayed this Court to pass necessary directions with regard to serving notice to the petitioner.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that this Court may direct the investigating Officer to serve notice to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of BNSS .
5. Having regard to the rival submissions made, on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that if the investigating Officer has not served the notice to petitioner yet, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 19.08.2025 between 11:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m., and in turn, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS , previously Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , [(2014) 8 SCC 273] scrupulously. However, the petitioner shall submit his defense and co- operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required by furnishing information and produce all relevant documents/material required for the purpose of the investigation and the Investigating Officer shall consider the same before filing appropriate report before the learned Magistrate concerned.
