Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7180 (UTT)

MUKESH BATRA AND ANR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/538/2025 · 2025-06-04

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.538 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Kishore Rai, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.3. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have impugned FIR No.0133 of 2025 dated 10.05.2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 352 of B.N.S. 2023, registered with Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. 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. 6. Since offence under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 352 of B.N.S. 2023 carries a punishment upto seven years, therefore before resorting to any arrest, a prior notice under Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 (under Section 41-A 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 B.N.S.S. Act, 2023 (under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.) 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed-off. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.06.2025 SK