IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.6992 of 2026 DATED : 06-03-2026 Between :

Syed Shah Asif Ullah Quadri.

… Petitioner.

And The State of Telangana, represented by The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500 022 and others.

… Respondents.

ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief :

“…to declare the action of the 3rd respondent – Stations House Officer, Balkonda Police Station, Nizambad District, in attempting to arrest the petitioner in connection with FIR No.09 of 2026, though the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment below seven years, and without adhering to the safeguards under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., 1973) as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar (AIR 2014 SC 2756), as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in the said crime and to strictly follow the procedure contemplated under law.…”

2. Heard Sri Mohammad Fayaz, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home.

3. The petitioner, a 61-year-old senior citizen and permanent resident of Hyderabad, is aggrieved by the action of the police in connection with FIR No.09 of 2026 registered at Balkonda Police Station for offences punishable with the imprisonment for a term of below seven years viz.Sections 281, 296(b), 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS. It is his contention that, despite the statutory mandate under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the respondents have neither issued notice nor followed the due procedure. On the contrary, police officials visited his residence, made enquiries with his family members and openly expressed their intention to arrest him, even stating that they may circumvent the safeguards by invoking Section 35(6) BNSS. The petitioner submits that such actions are in clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2014 SC 2756, which prohibits routine arrests in offences punishable below seven years without compliance with statutory safeguards. Apprehending illegal arrest and infringement of his fundamental rights, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection of his life and liberty and a direction to the respondents to strictly adhere to due process of law and not to take any coercive steps.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent police in attempting to arrest the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in blatant disregard of the statutory safeguards contemplated under law. It is contended that in offences punishable with imprisonment below seven years, issuance of notice under Section 35(3) BNSS is mandatory and arrest is an exception, not the rule. The learned counsel further submits that the conduct of the police in threatening arrest without adhering to the mandatory procedure amounts to abuse of power and defeats the very object of the safeguard provision. Such actions are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar case (cited supra), wherein strict compliance with procedural safeguards has been emphasized to prevent unnecessary arrests. It is also contended that the apprehension of the petitioner is well-founded, as the police have openly indicated their intention to circumvent the statutory protection, thereby rendering the safeguard illusory. The learned counsel submits that such arbitrary exercise of power infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 o