In cases where offences are punishable by less than seven years and a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS has been issued, the accused should first provide an explanation to the Investigating Officer in accordance with BNSS and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.85 of 2026 of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. Heard Mr.G.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No.1.

3. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner, and his name was not mentioned either in the complaint or in the FIR. However, based on the confession statement given by accused No.1, the petitioner was subsequently implicated as accused No.2. The confession statement of a co-accused is not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, though the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in Crime No.85 of 2026, during the course of investigation it was revealed that there was a conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused, and they had committed the alleged offences. Accordingly, the petitioner was subsequently arrayed as accused No.2. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) to the petitioner on 01.04.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner without submitting reply/explanation to the said notice straightaway approached this Court and filed the present criminal petition and the same is not maintainable under law.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 during the course of investigation, based on the material information available before the Investigating Officer and Investigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner on 01.04.2026.

7. In view of the same, the petitioner/accused No.2 is directed to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with him, to the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer is entitled to follow the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.