Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3952 (UTT)

DALIP SINGH BOHRA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/107/2026 · 2026-01-10

Pankaj Purohit

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, report s, or ders or proceedin gs or direct ion s an d Regist rar’s order w it h Sign at u res COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No.107 of 2026 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel i/b Mr. Saurabh Kr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Dy.A.G. for the State. 3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has impugned the FIR dated 03.02.2025 registered as Case Crime No.55 of 2025 u/s 4 and 22 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(3) of BNS, 2023, registered at P.S. Rishikesh, Distt. Dehradun. 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. Learned State Counsel has also agreed to this argument. 5. Since the offences alleged against petitioner carries a punishment maximum to seven years, therefore before resorting to any arrest, 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 petitioner. 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.) 10.01.2026 R.Dang