Mohammad Fayaz Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

“…to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT to declare the action of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer/Respondent No. 3, and the Station House Officer/Respondent No. 4, in high-handedly taking the Petitioner to the Police Station and illegally detaining him therein without registering any crime, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), and 21 of the Constitution of India b) to direct Respondent No. 4 not to summon the Petitioner to the Police Station and detain him illegally, without the registration of any crime and without following the due process of law, in future…”

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶27

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been unnecessarily called to the police station by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 without any basis.

¶28

Per Contra, Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that a notice contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’) was issued to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that a memo was filed before the Court altering the sections of law from Sections 196(1), 353(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’) to Sections 196(1), 353(1), and 61(2)(3) read with Section 3(5) of ‘the BNS’, thereby arraying the Petitioner as one of the accused.

¶29

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a practicing Advocate and that his name has been unnecessarily arrayed in the case as one of the accused.

¶30

3

¶31

Be that as it may, in view of the fact that a notice contemplated under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’ was issued to the Petitioner and the Petitioner has received that notice, there was justification on the part of Petitioner, being arraigned as one of the accused in the case to co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation. However, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not supposed to unnecessarily call the Petitioner to the police station, as the Petitioner being a practicing Advocate, his professional avocation would get disturbed. Nevertheless, it is made clear that when the presence of the Petitioner is inevitably required in the process of investigation, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to call him to the police station.

¶32