THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.10574 of 2025

ORDER

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

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.6 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the 4^th respondent is calling the petitioner to the police station regularly in the name of investigation into Crime No.125 of 2025 dt.21.02.2025 alleged to have been registered against him, in spite of the petitioner regularly appearing before the 5^th respondent from 22.03.2025 till 07.04.2025, on a daily basis.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on being issued with notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), even though the petitioner had submitted explanation on 28.03.2025, the 5^th respondent authority without considering the aforesaid explanation had issued further notice on 28.03.2025, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the 5^th respondent authority on 29.03.2025 at 9.00 AM and thereafter another notice on 29.03.2025 to appear on 04.04.2025 and on appearing before the 5^th respondent, on the said date, the petitioner was issued with another notice calling upon him to appear again on 07.04.2025.

5. Petitioner further contends that even though the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation into the aforesaid crime by appearing on all the dates as called upon by the authorities, the respondents-authorities without conducting investigation into the aforesaid crime, are making the petitioner to wait in the 4^th respondent police station from morning till evening and again issuing another notice directing him to appear on the following day.

6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that since he has already submitted explanation to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the respondents-authorities, without indicating as to what further investigation is to be undertaken, are issuing notices continuously, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegal, and arbitrary, thereby, harassing the petitioner, apart from interfering with his personal life and liberty.

7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 would submit that the since the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the 5^th respondent authority may be directed to consider the aforesaid explanation and take further action in the above mentioned crime, viz., Crime No.125 of 2025.

8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

9. Admittedly, a case has been registered against the petitioner, vide Crime No.125 of 2025 dt.21.02.2025, alleging commission of various offences, wherein the petitioner is shown as accused No.1.

10. The 5^th respondent being the Investigating Officer having chosen to issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the petitioner initially on 21.03.2025 calling upon him to present himself before the 5^th respondent on 22.03.2025 at 9.00 AM and on the petitioner appearing before the said authority, the 5^th respondent having issued another notice of the said date directing him to appear on the following day, i.e. 23.03.2025, again at 9.00 AM, kept on issuing similar such notices every day till 29.03.2025, on a daily basis.

11. In the interregnum, the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 28.03.2025, by sending the same under the cover of registered post, which, as evident from postal tracking report, has been delivered to the

5^th respondent authority on 01.04.2025.

12. T