A police notice lands on your doorstep, and suddenly your mind starts racing. Am I being arrested? Do I have to go? What happens if I ignore it? These are the first questions most people ask, and honestly, they’re the right ones to ask. Since the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, replaced the old CrPC, Section 35 has become one of the most talked-about and misunderstood provisions in Indian criminal procedure. So let’s break down what a notice under this section actually means for you, in plain terms.
None of this is entirely new, by the way. The old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had Sections 41 and 41A doing much the same job, telling police to issue a notice instead of slapping on handcuffs, at least in cases where the punishment topped out at seven years, unless there was a real reason to arrest.¹ What’s changed is the packaging. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, No. 46 of 2023 (India), § 35 [hereinafter BNSS], took that old idea, tightened it up, and folded it into the new code that came into effect on 1 July 2024.
But the spirit behind it hasn’t budged an inch. Arrest is supposed to be the last resort, not the opening move every time someone files a complaint. That’s really the whole point of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court came down hard on the habit of arresting people almost reflexively and told police officers, in no uncertain terms, to put their reasons for an arrest on paper before acting.²
Picture this: someone’s filed a complaint against you, or the police have picked up credible information suggesting you’re involved in a cognizable offence. Instead of showing up at your door to arrest you, the officer decides that’s not necessary right now and sends a written notice instead, asking you to appear at a particular place and time so the investigation can move forward.
This isn’t offered in every case, though. It’s mostly kept for situations that don’t involve serious violence or any real danger that you’ll flee, destroy evidence, or lean on witnesses. If those risks are genuinely present, the police can still go ahead and arrest you directly under the earlier parts of Section 35, no notice required.³
Here’s the part that matters most: comply with the notice, and you generally can’t be arrested over that same matter unless the investigating officer writes down, in specific terms, why an arrest has suddenly become necessary.⁴ That’s not just a box-ticking exercise buried in the fine print. It’s a real protection, one you can point to and, if it’s ignored, actually contest in court.⁵
A few other things you’re entitled to once that notice reaches you:
Knowing what you’re accused of. The notice should give you at least a general sense of why you’re being called in, so you’re not walking in blind.
Bringing a lawyer along. Nothing is stopping you from talking to a criminal lawyer before you show up, or having one with you when you do, and given how much can hinge on what gets said in that room, it’s usually a smart move.
A fixed time and place. The notice has to name a specific date, hour, and venue. Police can’t use it to keep you hanging around indefinitely or turn it into an open-ended obligation.
Not being arrested on a technicality. Courts have made clear that even if the police think something’s shifted, they need fresh material, something that wasn’t already on the table when the notice went out, before they can arrest someone who’s cooperated fully.
The Supreme Court leaned into exactly this point in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation. A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that, for offences carrying up to seven years in prison, issuing a Section 35(3) notice isn’t optional; it’s the default. Arrest is meant to be the exception, not the other way around.⁶ And the Court didn’t stop there. It added that any arrest coming after the notice has to rest on something genuinely new facts that weren’t already known when the notice was issued. Recycling the same old grounds simply won’t cut it.⁷
Of course, none of this is a one-way street. The protections under Section 35 come with strings attached, and brushing them off can cost you the very safeguard the law is offering.
Skip any of this, and the consequences are real. Fail to appear, refuse to give your name, or otherwise ignore the notice, and the police have every legal right to go after a warrant or move straight to arrest.⁸ Put simply: the shield only works for people who actually show up and cooperate. Ignore the notice, and that shield disappears with it.
If a notice like this ends up in your hands, don’t panic, but don’t sit on it either. Here’s what’s worth doing:
Read it properly. Note down the date, time, venue, and which officer or station sent it.
Keep a copy, and keep proof you received it. That paper trail can matter later if compliance ever gets disputed.
Talk to a criminal lawyer before you do anything else, especially to understand what the underlying complaint or FIR actually says.
Go when you’re told to, and be careful about what you say or do in the meantime — nothing that could be twisted into looking like evasion or intimidation.
If you’re arrested anyway, despite having done everything right, check whether the officer actually recorded reasons in writing. If they didn’t, that’s grounds to challenge the arrest.
Section 35 BNSS didn’t appear out of nowhere. It’s the product of years of courts and lawmakers pushing back against arrest as the automatic first step in every case, and it draws its strength from the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.⁹ For anyone who receives one of these notices, it works like a two-way deal: cooperate fully, and the law stands between you and an arrest unless something genuinely new comes up. Ignore it, and you’re on your own. Knowing the difference and acting on it quickly, with proper legal advice, is really what protects you here.
Written by Tushar Soni
Legal Intern, Sandhu Law Offices
B.B.A. LL.B., 2nd Year, Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla