Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9118 (UTT)

RAJA RAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/752/2025 · 2025-07-16

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.752 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State. 3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has impugned FIR No.0218 of 2025 dated 09.07.2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3) and 75 of B.N.S. 2023, registered at Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3) and 75 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 petitioner. Hence, it is provided that before taking any coercive measure against the petitioner, 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.) 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed-off. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.07.2025 SK