VIKAS KUMAR KASANA AND ANR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
WPCRL/227/2025 · 2025-03-19
Pankaj Purohit
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4065 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4065 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
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.227 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Vipul Painuli, B.H. for the State.
3. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have impugned the FIR No.0042 of 2025 dated 09.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 191(2), 304(2), 351(2) and 352 of B.N.S. 2023, registered with Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun.
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), 117(2), 191(2), 304(2), 351(2) and 352 of B.N.S. 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 petitioners, 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-off.
7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
19.03.2025 SK