and freedom from unnecessary, humiliating, and illegal arrest. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 173 , wherein strict compliance of Section 41 CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS) has been mandated and mechanical arrests have been deprecated. It is further contended that Section 187 of BNSS (earlier Section 167 CrPC) does not empower a Magistrate to remand an arrested person to custody as a matter of routine, particularly when the arrest is based merely on suspicion. The Magistrate is required to independently apply his mind and satisfy himself regarding the existence of an offence and the necessity of custody, which has not been done in the present case. Learned counsel also places reliance on Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260 , and Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) No. 5691/2025 , to submit that informing the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Articles 21 and 22(1), which was admittedly not complied with in the present case. Lastly, it is argued that the mandatory proviso under Section 35(3) of BNSS, requiring issuance of a notice of appearance prior to arrest, was completely ignored, thereby rendering the arrest of the petitioner illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
