Telangana HC: An accused cannot be called under a witness notice (Section 179 BNSS); notice set aside

Court: High Court for the State of Telangana
Date of judgment: 30 September 2026
Case: WP/32817/2026
Parties: Mutnuri Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana
Bench: TANGIRALA MADHAVI DEVI
Outcome: Disposed of

Summary

A man named first accused in a Hyderabad police case said the police kept calling him to the station and pressing him to settle with the complainant. The High Court found that police had sent him a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS, which is meant for witnesses, although he is an accused, and set that notice aside.

The question before the court

Can police use a Section 179 BNSS notice, meant for witnesses, against an accused?
Which notice must police use for an accused in an offence punishable by less than seven years?

The court's decision

Justice T. Madhavi Devi held that the petitioner is accused no. 1 and the offences carry less than seven years' imprisonment, so under the Supreme Court's guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar the police must issue a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS. A Section 179 notice cannot be issued to an accused, who cannot be made to give evidence against himself. The Court set aside the notice of 30 September 2026 and directed police to take no coercive steps for his not appearing on 2 October, and to proceed strictly in accordance with law after deciding his role. The writ was disposed of without costs.

Provisions referred to

Section 35(3), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 179, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court for the State of Telangana. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Criminal Procedure Police Powers Bnss Notice Arrest Guidelines Writ Petition

Related judgments

AP High Court ·29 Sep 2026 ·Police Powers ★ Editor's pick

A police station is not a civil court: AP High Court bars police from settling property fights, in seven writs

The question: Do police have any authority to decide or settle the civil rights of private parties?

In seven writ petitions decided on 29 September 2026, people complained that police had pulled them into disputes over land, houses and money that belonged in civil courts. The High Court answered the question in one line: the police have no jurisdiction to decide the civil rights of parties against each other. A day later the same judge gave an almost identical ruling in a larger batch of 13 writs.

Disposed of WP 29546 of 2024 and 6 other writ petitions

AP High Court ·22 Sep 2026 ·Writ Petition

AP High Court: Habeas corpus does not lie once an arrested person is in custody or on bail; newspaper reports are not proof

The question: Is a writ of habeas corpus maintainable when the detenus are in custody under a judicial remand order that has not been challenged?

Relatives of five men said they were illegally held by forest officials from 5 February 2026 before being produced before the Special Court for red sanders cases at Tirupati on 10 February, and asked for their release and compensation. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition: the men were in custody under a magistrate's remand order and were later granted bail.

Dismissed WP/4318/2026

Telangana High Court ·15 Sep 2026 ·Service Law

Telangana HC: Removal of an insurance officer later honourably acquitted is excessive; reduced to compulsory retirement

The question: Is the penalty of removal from service proportionate where the officer was honourably acquitted in a criminal trial on substantially the same charges?

An officer of National Insurance Company Limited was dismissed in 2002 after a departmental inquiry into medical-claim settlements, and the appellate authority upheld the penalty in 2016. He was later tried on substantially the same allegations in a corruption case and honourably acquitted. The High Court held that removal from service, after about 24 years of service, was unduly harsh and disproportionate.

Allowed WP/46784/2016