The Allahabad High Court has clarified the conditions for arrest in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The Court emphasized that arrest must comply with the mandate of Section 35(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), read with the Supreme Court's precedents in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The petitioners, Mishri Lal @ Mishri Lal Yadav and others, sought protection from arrest in connection with F.I.R. dated 10.07.2026 bearing Case Crime No. 252 of 2026 registered under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 324(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow.
Key Facts
- The F.I.R. pertains to offences punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years under the BNS, 2023.
- The petitioners did not challenge the F.I.R. but sought protection from arrest, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
- The Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2026 INSC 115) held that for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, arrest must comply with Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023.
Procedural History
- 21.07.2026: Present writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
- The petitioners argued that the mandate of Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023 must be followed, and sought protection from arrest.
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioners: Argued that arrest must comply with the conditions laid down in Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023 and the Supreme Court's precedents in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil.
- State: No specific counter-arguments were raised as the petitioners did not challenge the F.I.R.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought protection from arrest and a direction to the investigating agency to comply with the mandate of Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether arrest in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years under the BNS, 2023 must comply with the conditions specified in Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's judgments in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI to argue that arrest must comply with the mandate of Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023. They contended that the investigating agency must ensure that the conditions for arrest are met before effecting arrest in cases involving offences punishable with less than seven years' imprisonment.
For the Respondent
No specific arguments were advanced by the State respondents as the petitioners did not challenge the F.I.R. The Court proceeded to examine the matter based on the petitioners' submissions and the Supreme Court's precedents.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the provisions of Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023 and the Supreme Court's judgments in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The Court noted that the Apex Court has categorically held that investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023.
"Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has categorically held that the investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C. (now Section 35(3) of BNSS 2023)."
The Court observed that the offences in the impugned F.I.R. carry a maximum punishment of less than seven years' imprisonment. Therefore, the investigating agency must comply with the conditions specified in Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023 before effecting arrest.
The Verdict
The petitioners were granted protection from arrest. The Court directed that the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station whenever required to cooperate in the investigation. They were also directed to continue cooperating in the investigation until its completion. The Court held that the investigating agency must comply with the mandate of Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Arrest Conditions Are Non-Negotiable
Practitioners must ensure that arrest in cases involving offences punishable with less than seven years' imprisonment complies with the conditions specified in Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023. Failure to comply may render the arrest illegal.
- Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023 must be strictly followed.
- The investigating agency must record reasons for arrest and ensure that the conditions for arrest are met.
Supreme Court Precedents Are Binding
- The judgments in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI are binding on all investigating agencies.
- These precedents emphasize the importance of complying with statutory conditions before effecting arrest.
Cooperation With Investigation Is Mandatory
- The petitioners were directed to cooperate with the investigation.
- Failure to cooperate may result in the withdrawal of the protection granted by the Court.
