The Uttarakhand High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking transfer of investigation, holding that if the petitioner's personal presence is required by the Investigating Officer, advance notice must be given under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The judgment underscores procedural safeguards for individuals with medical conditions facing police investigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Padam Singh Rana, alleged that the Investigating Officer of FIR No. 0104 of 2026, registered at Police Station Raipur, Dehradun, compelled him and his son to enter into a compromise without issuing any notice, despite the petitioner having undergone spine surgery and being advised complete bed rest.
Key Facts
- FIR No. 0104 of 2026 was registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun.
- The petitioner underwent spine surgery and was advised complete bed rest (date of surgery not specified in the judgment).
- The Investigating Officer telephonically asked the petitioner to appear at the Police Station; instead, the petitioner sent his son along with an advocate.
- The son and advocate appeared before the Investigating Officer at approximately 08:04 p.m. (date of appearance not specified).
- It was alleged that during their presence, the Investigating Officer compelled them to enter into a compromise with the complainant.
- Learned State Counsel, on instructions, denied the allegations and stated that the petitioner was only telephonically asked to appear.
Procedural History
- The writ petition (WPCRL/1698/2026) was filed before the Uttarakhand High Court seeking transfer of the investigation to another Police Station in Dehradun.
- Learned State Counsel was directed to obtain instructions and subsequently denied the allegations.
- The judgment was pronounced on 23.09.2026.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction that, in the event his personal presence is required by the Investigating Officer in connection with the investigation, he be afforded reasonable advance notice in accordance with law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the petitioner is entitled to statutory advance notice before being required to appear before the Investigating Officer, given his medical condition and allegations of coercion, under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the Investigating Officer acted without notice, exploited his medical vulnerability, and attempted to coerce a compromise, thereby violating procedural fairness and the requirement of advance notice under Section 35(3) BNSS.
For the Respondent
The State denied any coercion, asserted that the petitioner was only telephonically asked to appear, and maintained that the son and advocate’s appearance was voluntary and unpressured.
The Court's Analysis
The Court noted the learned State Counsel had no objection to the petitioner’s prayer for advance notice. It considered the allegations of coercion and the petitioner’s medical condition, and held that the statutory mandate of advance notice under Section 35(3) BNSS applies whenever personal presence is required. The Court emphasized that the provision is designed to protect individuals from sudden compulsion and to ensure fair procedure.
"In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that, in the event the personal presence of the petitioner is required by the Investigating Officer in connection with the investigation of F.I.R. No. 0104 of 2026, registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun, the petitioner shall be given advance notice in accordance with Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded in part. The Court disposed of the writ petition and directed that if the petitioner's personal presence is required by the Investigating Officer in connection with FIR No. 0104 of 2026, he shall be given advance notice in accordance with Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. No costs, compensation, or other relief were granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Advance Notice Is a Statutory Right
Practitioners must now insist that any request for personal appearance during investigation be preceded by advance notice as stipulated in Section 35(3) BNSS, failing which the action may be challenged.
Medical Condition Triggers Procedural Vigilance
Where a petitioner asserts a medical condition requiring rest or special care, courts are likely to scrutinize whether the investigating agency complied with notice requirements before insisting on presence.
Coercion Allegations Demand Strict Adherence to Procedure
Allegations of pressure to compromise necessitate strict compliance with procedural safeguards; the burden lies on the State to show that notice was given and no undue influence was exerted.
