The single-judge bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav on Sept 10 issued the directive after declaring the arrest of two Pune brothers — aged 24 and 20 — by the Pune Rural police “illegal”
Pune : Bombay high court has ordered its registrar general to distribute a crucial directive to all superintendents and commissioners of police across Maharashtra, mandating strict adherence to statutory arrest procedures under Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court found that the police arrested the siblings at the exact date and time they served them notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, bypassing mandatory legal safeguards. The case stems from an FIR registered at the Talegaon Dabhade police station involving charges of kidnapping (Section 140-3), robbery (Section 311) and joint criminal liability (Section 3-5) under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Instead, the police handed them Section 35(3) notices and immediately took them into custody — a sequence of events the prosecution later admitted to in the court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav on Sept 10 issued the directive after declaring the arrest of two Pune brothers — aged 24 and 20 — by the Pune Rural police “illegal”. He argued that the police routinely acted in a “great rush and hurry” to arrest individuals the same day a notice was served. Concurring fully, Justice Jadhav stated that broader directions were “absolutely necessary in larger public interest” to halt “knee-jerk” arrests.
The two brothers had walked into the police station simply to enquire about the arrest of their father, also an accused in the case. Advocate Nikitesh Kotangale, representing the brothers, urged the court to issue statewide guidelines.
Legal Implications of Section 35(3) Notice in BNSS
A Section 35(3) notice under the BNSS is a legal directive requiring an accused person to appear for questioning instead of being taken into custody immediately. Justice Jadhav has pointed out that serving this notice alongside an arrest undermines the protections outlined in Section 35(6). This section restricts arrests to instances where an individual does not comply with the notice or refuses to identify themselves, provided there is a court’s approval. Jadhav’s remarks highlight concerns that such simultaneous actions render the legal safeguards ineffective.