#Under Section 35

The Supreme Court recently held that the police must serve notice under section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before arresting people accused of offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. #advocacy #socialjustice #raiseawareness #humanrights #voicesmatter

The Supreme Court has clarified that serving of notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is mandatory for accused persons alleged to have committed an offence punishable up to seven years of imprisonment. The Court held that no arrest can be made for such offences unless the police officer serves a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and furnishes reasons in writing. This ruling underscores the discretionary nature of arrests, emphasizing that they should only be made when necessary. For full story, Read description . . #ArrestPolicy #CriminalProcedure #SupremeCourtJudgment #PolicePower #LegalUpdate

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that once a final report is filed under Section 173(2) CrPC, the police cannot conduct further investigation on their own and must seek prior permission from the Magistrate or competent Court under Section 173(8) CrPC (now Section 193(9) BNSS). A Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi set aside an Allahabad High Court order that allowed police-led further investigation without judicial leave. The Court clarified that ordering further investigation lies solely within judicial discretion, reinforcing safeguards against executive overreach. Reliance was placed on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) and subsequent precedents. #SupremeCourt #CrPC #FurtherInvestigation #indianjusticesystem #bnss

While affirming that issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is mandatory for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the Supreme Court clarified that an arrest under Section 35(6) can be made even after such notice only based on fresh materials that were not available to the police officer at the time the Section 35(3) notice was issued. Section 35(6) BNSS empowers the police to arrest a person who fails to comply with Section 35(3) BNSS notice, i.e., to appear before the police officer or fails to identify himself to the police. "While making an arrest under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, after the stage of issuing a notice seeking presence under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, the circumstances and factors that were in existence at the time of issuing the said notice shall not be taken into consideration by a police officer while making an arrest subsequently. In other words,for effecting an arrest under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, it must be based upon materials and factors which were not available with the police officer at the time of issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023,” the Court clarified. The Court cautioned that "the power of arrest under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023 is to be exercised rather sparingly." CASE : SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Supreme Court of India recently held that a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to an accused or any other persons concerned qua offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years is a rule and that even circumstances warranting an arrest of a person are available in terms of conditions mentioned under Section 35 (1)(b) of BNSS, the arrest shall not be undertaken unless it is absolutely warranted.⚖️

Police cannot arrest just to ask questions, Notice First, Arrest Later: Supreme Court Makes Prior Notice Mandatory for Offences Punishable Up to 7 Years The Supreme Court of India has ruled that in cases where an offence is punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, the police must ordinarily issue a prior notice to the accused before making an arrest. The Court clarified that arrest is an exception, not a routine step, and must be resorted to only when it is absolutely necessary for the investigation. The Court further held that even where grounds for arrest exist under the law, the police must record clear reasons in writing explaining why arrest is necessary. Arrest cannot be made merely to question an accused or for the convenience of the investigating agency. The Supreme Court took up the case to resolve this growing legal confusion, especially in the context of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). he core concern before the Court was whether individuals accused of offences punishable up to seven years could still be arrested as a matter of course, or whether personal liberty must prevail unless arrest is absolutely unavoidable. The case directly impacted how police exercise arrest powers across India, particularly in ordinary criminal cases where arrest has often been used as a tool of coercion rather than necessity Arrest guidline. #CriminalLaw #PersonalLiberty #BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) #RuleOfLaw #NoticeBeforeArrest

The Supreme Court of India has clarified that the protection under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not apply to cases involving demand of illegal gratification by public servants. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and S.C. Sharma held that Section 17A is confined only to acts relating to decisions or recommendations taken in discharge of official duties. Demand for bribes cannot be considered part of official functions. Consequently, no prior government sanction is required to investigate such offences. Upholding the Rajasthan High Court’s view, the Court ruled that State Anti-Corruption Bureau can validly investigate Central Government employees for bribe-related offences. #SupremeCourt #PreventionOfCorruptionAct #AntiCorruption #Bribery #RuleOfLaw

Kya Judge Director of Prosecution ban sakta hai? 🤔 Supreme Court ne BNSS 2023 par challenge ko kar diya reject. Case : Subeesh P. S. v. Union of India 2026 SC Disclaimer: This video has been generated using artificial intelligence. Any characters, voices, faces, or likenesses appearing in this video are fictional and do not represent any real person. Any resemblance to actual individuals, living or deceased, is purely coincidental and unintended. #SupremeCourt #BNSS2023 #Article50 #Judiciary #LegalNews

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that anticipatory bail, once granted under Section 438 of the CrPC (now BNSS), is not generally time-bound and can last throughout the trial. While it is an exceptional, not routine, remedy, it is not absolutely barred even for proclaimed offenders. Duration: Anticipatory bail is not restricted to the investigation stage and does not expire upon the filing of a chargesheet. Duration Extension: Protection ordinarily continues until the end of the trial. Conditions: It acts as insurance against arrest. While courts can impose conditions (e.g., non-interference with evidence), imposing arbitrary time limits or requiring large, non-merit-based deposits is invalid. Proclaimed Offenders: Recent rulings have clarified that being declared a “proclaimed offender” under Section 82 of the CrPC does not create an absolute bar to granting anticipatory bail. Exceptional Nature: Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power and should not be granted in a routine manner; it depends on the facts of each case. #bail #supremecourt #law #legal #case

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने बड़ा फैसला दिया है। यह देखते हुए कि किसी पुलिस अधिकारी के लिए ऐसा करना वैध है, मात्र इसलिए गिरफ्तारी नहीं की जा सकती।जांच एजेंसी को किसी आरोपी को पूछताछ के लिए हिरासत में नहीं लेना चाहिए और ऐसा तभी किया जाना चाहिए जब जांच के लिए यह जरूरी हो। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इसी के साथ गिरफ्तारी से जुड़ी भारतीय नागरिक संहिता ( BNSS ), 2023 की कई धाराओं की व्याख्या कर दी है। #supremecourt #supremecourtdecision

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took serious exception to Class 8 NCERT test book containing reference to corruption in the judiciary. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant took suo motu cognizance on the matter and said that he would not "allow anyone on earth to defame judiciary". #legalnews #supremecourt #dailyupdates #corruption #trending #explore #reels

The Supreme Court stated that justice cannot be delivered under public pressure or media outrage. Investigations and court decisions must be based on law and evidence, not public emotions.#supremecourtofindia