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)(Tel) 53952

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
Pathlavat Nanya Naik – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 13950/2025



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 13950 of 2025

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 11 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though the respondents-authorities have registered a case vide Crime No.256 of 2025 under the provisions of BNS read with the provisions under the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the unofficial respondents herein, the authorities have not arrested the said respondents though they are not entitled for being granted with station bail in terms of Section 41A of Cr.P.C.,/35(3) of BNSS, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents would submit that even though a crime is

registered under the provisions of the SCs & STs(POA) Act, if the offence, for which a crime is registered, is having the potential punishment of 7 years or less, the authorities can issue notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C./35(3) of BNSS instead of immediately

arresting the accused.

5. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

6. Though on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the authorities cannot issue notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C./35(3) of BNSS, it is to be noted that the said issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Rajulapati Ankababu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Judgment dt.25.10.2017 in Crl.P.No.7468 of 2017

7. Further, the aforesaid decision has been followed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kandala Penchalaiah, and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh2

8. The ratio laid down in all the aforesaid decisions is to the affect that since, 41A Cr.P.C.,/35(3) BNSS does not bar issuance of such notice even though the offence registered is under the provisions of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, if the punishment for the

2 Crl.P.No.2416 of 2024, dt.01.05.2024

offence with which the accused is charged is less than 7 years, the accused is entitled to notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C./35(3)

BNSS.

9. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition as filed by the petitioner is misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

10. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J

02nd May, 2025.

gra THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.13950 of 2025 Dt.02.05.2025 gra

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