Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3586 (UTT)

KANHAIYA BISHT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/177/2025 · 2025-03-07

Pankaj Purohit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No.177 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Ms. Neeti Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners (appeared through V.C.). 2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal and Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holders for the State. 3. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have impugned the FIR No.0024 of 2025 dated 09.11.2024, under Sections 85, 115, 351(2), 352, BNS 2023, registered with Police Station Salt, District Almora. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has limited his argument to the extent that the investigation agency should comply with the guidelines given in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. 5. Since the offences under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 333, 351(2), 352, 74, 79 of BNS, 2023 carries a punishment maximum to seven years, therefore before resorting to any arrest a prior notice under Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 (under Section 41A of Cr.P.C.) is necessary to be issued to the petitioners. Hence, it is provided that before taking any coercive measures against the petitioner, the Investigating Officer shall abide by procedure given under Section 35(3) of the BNSS Act, 2023 (under Section 41A of Cr.P.C.) 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.03.2025 AK