1. 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.