Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026

The petitioner challenged the procedure followed by police under Section 35 of BNSS concerning arrest and issuance of notice for cognizable offences.

The petitioner raised the issue of mandatory issuance of notice versus discretionary arrest.

The case required interpretation of Section 35(3) of BNSS regarding whether notices must be issued for offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years before making an arrest.

The court examined the scope of arrest under Section 35(1)(b) and the requirement of reasons recorded in writing.

The matter also involved clarifying police discretion and mandatory compliance for less severe offences.

The Supreme Court held that serving of notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS is mandatory for offences punishable up to 7 years.

Arrest for such offences is discretionary and not automatic, even if conditions under Section 35(1)(b) exist.

Police officers must record reasons in writing both for arrest and for opting not to arrest.

A notice under Section 35(3) is the rule, while an arrest under Section 35(6) is the exception.

Arrest is to be exercised cautiously, ensuring necessity before taking action.

Police officers should assess the necessity of arrest to facilitate investigation but should not treat it as routine.

Court’s reasoning: The Court emphasized that arrest is a discretionary tool to facilitate investigation, while notice under Section 35(3) protects the accused from unnecessary detention.

Mandatory issuance of notice for offences punishable up to 7 years.

Arrest is only permissible if conditions under Section 35(1)(b) exist and is not routine.

Recording reasons in writing ensures accountability and transparency.

Strengthens procedural safeguards for accused persons.

Limits arbitrary arrests for minor offences.

Clarifies discretionary versus mandatory actions under BNSS.