BNSS — Section 482 — Pre-arrest Bail — NDPS Act — Offences punishable below 7 years — Compliance with Arnesh Kumar directions — Section 35(3) BNSS / Section 41-A CrPC — IO must issue notice instead of routine arrest — Where offence alleged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) NDPS Act carries punishment less than 7 years; petitioner similarly placed as co-accused who earlier obtained relief — Held, IO must strictly comply with procedural safeguards under Section 41-A CrPC / Section 35(3) BNSS and follow Arnesh Kumar v. Bihar and Md. Asfak Alam guidelines before exercising arrest power; petition disposed directing enforcement of safeguards and requiring petitioner’s cooperation. (Crl.P. No.12304 of 2025, decided on 08-12-2025, per Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.)

BNSS — Section 482 — Pre-arrest Bail — NDPS Act — Offences punishable below 7 years — Compliance with Arnesh Kumar directions — Section 35(3) BNSS / Section 41-A CrPC — IO must issue notice instead of routine arrest —
Where offence alleged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) NDPS Act carries punishment less than 7 years; petitioner similarly placed as co-accused who earlier obtained relief — Held, IO must strictly comply with procedural safeguards under Section 41-A CrPC / Section 35(3) BNSS and follow Arnesh Kumar v. Bihar and Md. Asfak Alam guidelines before exercising arrest power; petition disposed directing enforcement of safeguards and requiring petitioner’s cooperation.
(Crl.P. No.12304 of 2025, decided on 08-12-2025, per Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.)

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Procedural Posture

• Petition filed under Section 482 BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail/anticipatory protection.

• Crime No.161/2025 registered for NDPS offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) (intermediate quantity category — punishment less than 7 years).

• Petitioner stands in same footing as Accused No.4, who previously obtained limited protection requiring compliance with arrest-guidelines (Crl.P. 9639/2025, dt. 19-09-2025).

2. Core Legal Question

• Whether arrest of petitioner may be effected without compliance of statutory safeguards under Section 41-A CrPC / Section 35(3) BNSS and the judicial standards under Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam?

3. Governing Jurisprudence

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273

• Arrest must not be automatic.

• IO must record necessity for arrest and furnish reasons.

• Notice of appearance must be issued when punishment is less than or up to 7 years.

• Magistrate must verify IO compliance before authorizing detention.

• Failure renders officer liable for departmental & contempt action.

Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, (2023) 8 SCC 632

• Reaffirms Arnesh Kumar safeguards and extends them.

• Applies equally to all offences carrying maximum imprisonment up to seven years.

4. Judicial Reasoning in this Order

• State conceded applicability of Section 41-A CrPC / Section 35(3) BNSS.

• Maximum punishment prescribed for the offence is less than seven years, therefore entire Arnesh Kumar framework applies.

• Court noted parity — Accused No.3 on same footing as Accused No.4, in whose case compliance directions were already issued.

Thus, protection granted not through unconditional bail, but through enforcement of mandatory arrest-restriction safeguards.

5. Operative Legal Position Emerging

• In offences punishable below seven years, arrest must be exception and not rule.

• IO must issue notice of appearance and justify arrest need per checklist.

• Courts ensure due process, not blanket immunity — petitioner must cooperate with investigation.

CONCLUSION

The High Court held:

• Since the offence attracts less than seven years and the petitioner is similarly situated as another accused already protected, Section 35(3) BNSS / Section 41-A CrPC safeguards must govern arrest procedure.

• Petition disposed by directing the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with requirements of Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam, while petitioner must fully cooperate with investigation.

Accordingly, no pre-arrest bail in absolute form was granted, but procedural pre-arrest protection via statutory compliance directives was ordered.