Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 41 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 11 July, 2022
26. Hence, we give our imprimatur to the views expressed by the High
Court of Bombay and, as already observed by us in this order that, as a
matter of course, a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is to
be issued to an accused or any individual concerned, qua an offence
punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years and, that, as long as a
person to whom a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is
Page 17 of 22
issued has complied and continues to comply with the terms of the
notice then, as per Section 35(5) of the BNSS, 2023, it is not open for
the police officer to arrest him unless, for reasons to be recorded, the
police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 SCC
ONLINE SC 1578
“23. Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023 lays down the procedure to be
followed in case of non-compliance with the notice issued by the
Investigating Agency under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Non-
compliance with a notice does not ipso facto mandate arrest, as
there lies a discretion with the Investigating Agency, which must be
of the opinion that the arrest of the concerned person is necessary
for the purpose of investigation. In other words, failure to comply
with the notice does not lead to automatic arrest. Rather, it is the
last resort available to the Investigating Agency, after due exercise
of discretion regarding the necessity of arrest.
Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014
15. Finally, it is submitted that as Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 and the
ratio of the judgments of this court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and
Satender Kumar Antil (supra) themselves clearly provide the specific
exceptions where arrest is permissible, no further clarification is
required from this Court.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Bhagwant Kishore Joshi on 17 April, 1963
16. An investigation by a police officer generally begins with the recording
of information regarding an offence. It is a process which is primarily
aimed at the ascertainment of facts and circumstances surrounding an
alleged crime and involves the police officer proceeding to the spot of
Page 9 of 22
occurrence to collect evidence and ends with the formation of an
opinion as to whether, on the basis of the material collected, there is a
case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and, if so, taking
the necessary steps for the same by filing a charge-sheet. This has been
succinctly dealt with by this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, (1964) 3 SCR 71 in the following
manner:
H. N. Rishbud And Inder Singh vs The State Of Delhi(And Connected ... on 14 December, 1954
“17. What is investigation is not defined in the Code of Criminal
Procedure; but in H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi
[(1955) 1 SCR 1150, 1157-58] this Court has described, the procedure,
for investigation as follows:
Joginder Kumar vs State Of U.P on 25 April, 1994
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP And Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 260
“20...No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to
do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification
for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to
justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention
in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the
reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a
routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made
against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest
of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his
own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable
satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and
bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's
complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person
of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police
Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the
fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to
arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be
some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the
arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous
offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to
Page 15 of 22
person to attend the Station House and not to leave the station without
permission would do.”
(emphasis supplied)