IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1913 of 2026 Date: 13.02.2026 Between:

Bedarej Suman Rao ...petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana and another ...respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.47 of 2026 of RGI Airport Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate/District.

2. Heard Mr. Venkata Mohana Rao Pathokota, learned counsel representing Mr. Sandeep Hegerse, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared through video conference and Mr. V. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the present crime. However, the Investigating Officer summoned the petitioner to the Police Station on 23.01.2026 and then served notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) and also taken the mobile phone of the petitioner without following any mandatory procedure. The issuance of the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is not permissible under law on the ground that the petitioner was not arrayed as accused in the present crime. Learned counsel further submits that issuance of notice arises only when the petitioner is arrayed as accused, but, as on the date of 23.01.2026, the petitioner was not arrayed as accused. Hence, the issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS is contrary to the provisions of BNSS. Hence, proceedings if any, against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation, it reveals that the petitioner was also involved in the present crime and the Investigating Officer arrayed the petitioner as accused No.2. The offences leveled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment below seven years and the Investigating Officer has rightly exercised the powers conferred under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and issued notice to the petitioner on 23.01.2026 and the petitioner is entitled to submit is reply/statement to the said notice by raising all the pleas which are available to him by submitting documents if any, within his custody and the Investigating Officer will also follow the procedure as contemplated under provisions of BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. The State of Jharkhand & anr. (Crl.A.No.2207 of 2023) dated 31.07.2023, and also the circular issued by this Court in ROC.No.1399/SO/2023 dated

09.08.2023.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record and the instructions placed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor which were furnished by the RGI Airport Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate/District, it reveals that the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 in the present crime and it is not in dispute that the Investigating Officer had already issued notice on 23.01.2026 to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of the BNSS on the ground that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. In view of the same, petitioner is granted liberty to submit his reply/statement to the notice

by raising the pleas by enclosing all relevant documents available in his custody. The Investigating Officer is further directed to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines and principles issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra and Md. Asfak Alam supra, and conclude the investigation. As regards the other grounds with respect to the seizure of the mobile phone, liberty is granted to the aggrieved part