[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Smt.G.Latha vs The State Of Telangana on 2 April, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.9851 OF 2026
DATE : 02.04.2026
Between:
Smt. G.Latha and Others
...Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana and Others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the
respondent No. 5 in not supplying the additional
complaint/statements, despite altering sections of law in
Crime No. 365/2024, on the file of Gopalapuram Police
Station, Hyderabad, to the petitioners for giving proper
explanation to the Notice under Section 35(3) of BNS, as
illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 and
consequently direct the Respondent No. 5 to furnish
additional complaint/ statements of the victim and any
material relied upon for alteration of sections and pass...."
2. Heard Mr.B.Madhu Sudhan Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Home.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
were not originally arrayed as accused in Crime No. 365 of 2024 on the
file of Gopalapuram Police Station, Hyderabad. It is contended that,
subsequently, notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) have been issued to the petitioners.
However, no incriminating material particulars forming the basis of their
implication have been furnished to them.
3.2. It is further submitted that in the absence of disclosure of the
allegations and the material relied upon by the prosecution, the
petitioners are effectively deprived of a meaningful opportunity to
respond to such notice. Learned counsel contends that such non-
disclosure is contrary to the principles of natural justice and also
undermines the procedural safeguards implicit in Sections 35 and 36 of
the BNSS. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking a direction to
respondent No. 5 to furnish the material relied upon for implicating the
petitioners, thereby enabling them to submit an effective explanation.
4.1. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home
submits, on instructions, that during the course of investigation, and
pursuant to directions of the competent court for reinvestigation based
on requisitions made by the Investigating Officer, further statements of
the victim and her mother were recorded. It is contended that, on the
basis of such material, the sections of law were altered and the
involvement of the petitioners came to light.
4.2. It is further submitted that notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS
were duly served upon the petitioners and, upon their appearance, the
Investigating Officer apprised them of the allegations. However, the
petitioners allegedly failed to cooperate with the investigation. The
learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the
documents and material sought by the petitioners can be accessed
through appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional court, and
therefore, no further direction is warranted.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made and perused
the material placed on record.
6. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that, in the absence of
disclosure of the material forming the basis of their implication, they are
unable to effectively respond to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of
BNSS. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent police indicates
that certain statements and medical evidence were collected during
reinvestigation and that the petitioners were orally informed of the
allegations.
7. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the procedural
framework governing investigation, particularly in cases where arrest is
not immediately warranted, must adhere to the safeguards evolved to
protect personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273,
emphasized that issuance of notice of appearance is not an empty
formality and must be meaningful, enabling the person concerned to
respond appropriately.
8. Further, in Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1994 AIR SC
1349, the Supreme Court underscored that the power of arrest and
investigation must be exercised with transparency and fairness, ensuring
that an individual is not subjected to arbitrary procedures.
9. In the present case, while the respondents assert that certain
material exists, there is no indication that the essential grounds of
accusation have been furnished in a manner that would enable the
petitioners to effectively respond. Mere oral communication of
allegations, without disclosure of the foundational basis, would render
the statutory notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS ineffective and illusory.
10. In view of the above and having regard to the competing interests
of a fair investigation and the protection of individual rights, this Court
deems it appropriate to issue the following directions:
11. Accordingly, respondent No. 5 is directed to furnish to the
petitioners, in writing, the grounds and basic material on the basis of
which they have been arrayed as accused in the subject crime, to the
extent permissible under law. Upon such furnishing, the petitioners shall
submit their explanation in response to the notice issued under Section
35(3) of BNSS.
12. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer shall proceed with the
investigation strictly in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with
the statutory provisions and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the related judicial dictums. The aforesaid exercise
shall be completed within a period of one week from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. The petitioners are also directed to extend full
cooperation during the course of investigation.
13. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 02.04.2026.
CHS
