IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.9855 OF 2026 DATE : 02.04.2026 Between:

Shivaratri Narsimhulu …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana and Others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in not issuing notice under Section 35 B.N.S.S., in Cr.No.50 / 2026 on the file of Yellareddypet Police Station as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct Respondent No.2 to issue notice under Section 35 BNSS as laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and pass.…”

2. Heard Mr. Muddala Mahesh, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been charged under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. It is contended that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term extending to less than seven years. In such circumstances, the mandate of Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) squarely applies, requiring the Investigating Officer to issue a notice of appearance instead of resorting to arrest in a routine manner.

3.2. It is further submitted that, despite the statutory obligation, the investigating agency has not issued any notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. The petitioner asserts that he has no intention to evade the process of law and is willing to cooperate fully with the investigation. Therefore, it is prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to the concerned police authorities to adhere to the procedure established by law by issuing notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, thereby protecting the petitioner from any arbitrary or coercive action, in consonance with the safeguards enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, upon instructions, submits that the petitioner is absconding, and therefore, attempts to serve notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS have proved futile. It is accordingly prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the petitioner to receive such notice and to cooperate with the investigation.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and considering that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment for a term less than seven years, this Court is guided by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 SCC 8 273, wherein it was categorically held that arrest should not be made in a mechanical manner and that compliance with statutory safeguards, including issuance of notice of appearance, is mandatory.

7. In view of the petitioner’s expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and in order to balance the interests of effective investigation with the protection of individual liberty, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Yellareddypeta Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District, on or before 09.04.2026. Upon such appearance, the Investigating Officer shall issue notice to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of the BNSS in connection with Crime No. 50 of 2026 and thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law, including adherence to the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and other governing precedents relating to arrest and investigation. The petitioner shall, in turn, extend full cooperation to the Investigating Officer and shall not, directly or indirectly, interfere with the course of investigation.

8. With this direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pen