When police may arrest without warrant
Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with when police may arrest without warrant. Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person— (a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person—
(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence; or
(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely:—
(i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence;
(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary—
(a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or
(b) for proper investigation of the offence; or
(c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or
(d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or
(e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing:
Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest; or
(c) against whom credible information has been received that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years whether with or without fine or with death sentence and the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of that information that such person has committed the said offence; or
(d) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Sanhita or by order of the State Government; or
(e) in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing; or
(f) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape, from lawful custody; or
(g) who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the Union; or
(h) who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India; or
(i) who, being a released convict, commits a breach of any rule made under sub-section (5) of section 394; or
(j) for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or oral, has been received from another police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and it appears therefrom that the person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition
(2) Subject to the provisions of section 39, no pn.erson concerned in a non-cognizable offence or against whom a complaint has been made or credible information has been received or reasonable suspicion exists of his having so concerned, shall be arrested except under a warrant or order of a Magistrate.
(3) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under sub-section (1) issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.
(4) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.
(5) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.
(6) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.
(7) No arrest shall be made without prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in case of an offence which is punishable for imprisonment of less than three years and such person is infirm or is above sixty years of age
Section 35, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 41 When police may arrest without warrant Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 41, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Arrest is not automatic for offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. Police must record satisfaction of the conditions in section 41 CrPC (and serve the section 41A notice where applicable) before arresting, including in 498A cases. Magistrates must scrutinise the need for detention.
On this section: BNSS 35 is the successor arrest-without-warrant provision; Arnesh checklists carry forward.
-
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 41, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception in criminal procedure. The presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, places the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. Courts must exercise their discretion in granting or refusing bail judiciously, considering all relevant factors including the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the conduct of the accused during investigation, the delay in trial, and the likelihood of the accused absconding. Investigating agencies must comply with Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC by recording reasons for arrest and for not arresting. Non-compliance with these provisions entitles the accused to bail. Courts must act as guardians of liberty and ensure that personal liberty is protected in accordance with the procedure established by law.
On this section: Police power to arrest without warrant; conditions for arrest of persons accused of cognizable offences
-
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 41, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the same act constitutes an offence both under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under the Indian Penal Code, specifically where minerals are dishonestly removed from government land without consent (theft under IPC), the two offences are distinct in their ingredients and ingredients are different. Therefore, Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which restricts cognizance of offences under the Act to complaints by authorized officers, does not bar prosecution under the IPC for the distinct offence of theft. The police can register FIR for theft, investigate, and submit report to Magistrate for cognizance under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC, while simultaneously the authorized officer can file complaint for MMDR Act violation requiring different procedure for Magistrate cognizance. Both prosecutions can proceed as the offences are distinct and the bar against double jeopardy applies only to identical offences.
On this section: Police authority to arrest without warrant for cognizable offences; relevant to police powers in mining offences
-
Kalubhai Dulabhai Khachar vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 41, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where conduct constitutes an offence under both the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the MMDR Act do not impliedly or explicitly exclude prosecution under the IPC. Police can register FIR, investigate and submit charge sheets for theft of minerals under IPC Sections 378-379 based on discovery of unauthorized removal of minerals from government land. Magistrates can take cognizance of theft offences on police reports under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC without awaiting complaint from authorized MMDR officer. However, for offences constituting breach of mining lease or unauthorized mining specifically under MMDR Act Section 21, cognizance by Magistrate can only be taken upon complaint in writing by person authorized by Central or State Government as required by MMDR Act Section 22. These are distinct offences with different ingredients and prosecution for both does not violate Article 20(2) protection against double jeopardy provided person is not punished twice for identical offence. The Public Trust Doctrine establishes that natural resources are national assets requiring protection through multiple enforcement mechanisms. Police duty under Sections 149-152 CrPC to prevent cognizable offences includes authority and responsibility to investigate illegal mining even without prior authorization from mining authorities.
On this section: Police power to arrest without warrant for cognizable offences; applied to establish police authority to act in mining cases
-
Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 41, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court cannot grant blanket anticipatory bail protecting an accused from arrest for any non-bailable offence, nor can it impose conditions such as prior notice before arrest on the statutory power of arrest vested in investigating authorities under section 104 of Customs Act. Anticipatory bail must be specific to identified offence(s), based on applicant's reasonable apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence, and cannot include conditions that interfere with or obstruct the legitimate investigative authority and statutory powers of arrest. The jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary but must be exercised within statutory limits and cannot be used to impose judicial obstacles to investigation.
On this section: Provisions governing arrest by police officers. Court noted these establish the framework within which statutory powers of arrest are exercised, emphasizing the balance between investigative necessity and individual liberty.
-
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union Of India
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 41, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court held that while there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution, LGBTQ+ persons have a constitutional right to enter into abiding cohabitational relationships grounded in Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 25. The Special Marriage Act 1954 cannot be read down to permit same-sex marriages due to semantic impossibilities and interconnected gendered provisions. The Court recognized that existing laws create indirect discriminatory impact on queer couples by denying them access to spousal benefits in employment, succession, adoption, and taxation. The Court declined to issue directions for marriage equality, finding such matters require comprehensive parliamentary action. Instead, the Court directed the Union Government to constitute a high-powered committee to examine the discriminatory impact of existing laws and regulations on same-sex couples and recommend appropriate remedies. Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing laws through harmonious interpretation with the Transgender Persons Act.
On this section: Regulate police conduct in arrest and detention; cited for need to protect LGBTQ+ persons from police harassment
-
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union Of India
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 41, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The foundational ratio of the judgment is: While the Indian Constitution does not expressly protect a fundamental right to marry (and therefore the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act cannot be compelled to be read in gender-neutral manner to include same-sex couples through judicial reinterpretation), the Constitution protects LGBTQ+ persons' right to enter into abiding relationships with freedom from state interference, dignity, autonomy, and privacy. The state has affirmatively created the institution of marriage and conferred tangible and intangible benefits through it. By systematically excluding LGBTQ+ persons from these benefits while providing them to heterosexual couples, the state engages in indirect discrimination violating Articles 14 and 15. While courts cannot create new legal statuses through interpretation, the state (Union Government and State Governments) is under constitutional obligation to eliminate the discriminatory impact by: (1) undertaking comprehensive examination of all laws and regulations that tie benefits to marital status; (2) ensuring that sexual orientation-based discrimination is removed from all statutory schemes; (3) considering appropriate legislative or administrative measures to recognize LGBTQ+ unions and extend benefits; (4) protecting LGBTQ+ persons from family violence, coercion, and police harassment; (5) not interfering with the right of LGBTQ+ persons to live in intimate relationships free from state coercion. The exact form this takes (marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, administrative extension of benefits) is for Parliament and the state legislatures to determine after appropriate consultation, but the obligation to eliminate discrimination is immediate.
On this section: These sections govern police powers to arrest. The court issued directions that police must follow the mandate of these sections when responding to complaints involving queer adults who voluntarily leave natal homes, requiring preliminary investigation before registration of FIRs.
-
Om Prakash vs Union of India
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 41, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, are non-cognizable in the sense that police officers cannot arrest without warrant and cannot investigate without Magistrate's order under Section 155 Cr.P.C. However, such offences are also bailable, because (1) they relate to recovery of revenue rather than punishment for grave crimes, (2) Sections 20 and 104(3) mandatorily empower officers to release arrested persons on bail, (3) the legislative scheme indicates intent that such offences should be bailable, and (4) the deeming language in Sections 9A and 104(4) making offences non-cognizable does not negate bailability. Non-cognizable and bailable are separate characteristics, and a statute can make offences both non-cognizable (restricting arrest authority) and bailable (entitling accused to bail).
On this section: Provides circumstances when police may arrest without warrant. Section 41(1)(a) deals with cognizable offences. Court references this to show distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable arrest powers.
-
State of M. P vs Balram Mihani
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 41, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Chapter VII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provisions for attachment and forfeiture of property (Sections 105-A to 105-L) apply exclusively to offences that have international ramifications and involve reciprocal arrangements with contracting states as defined in Section 105-A(a), and do not apply to local offences committed within India such as gambling and ordinary offences under the Indian Penal Code. The proper interpretation requires reading the general language of Section 105-C(1) in the contextual background of the chapter's purpose as demonstrated by the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the legislative history, and the specific references throughout the chapter to contracting states and international criminal cooperation mechanisms.
On this section: Referenced as alternative provision for handling properties in cases involving local offences
-
Arun Pathak vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 41, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail primarily on the ground of apprehension of imminent arrest and custodial interrogation, and the State, through its counsel, explicitly informs the Supreme Court that it does not require custodial interrogation of the petitioner and that statutory notice under Section 41A CrPC has been served, the Special Leave Petition becomes infructuous and stands disposed of without adjudication on the substantive merits of bail, as the fundamental cause for the petition—the threat of arrest—ceases to exist.
On this section: Procedure for issuing notice to person suspected of committing offence before arrest
-
Salil Shripad Mehendale vs The State of Maharashtra through Manpada Police Station
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An application for anticipatory bail may be disposed of as premature if the police have issued a Section 35(3) BNSS notice and undertaken to provide prior notice (e.g., 72 hours) before any actual arrest.
On this section: Procedure for notice of appearance and protection from arrest during compliance.
-
Kashinath Mishra vs State of Odisha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An anticipatory bail application is not maintainable when no formal FIR has been registered against the petitioner, as there is no apprehension of arrest. However, arresting officers must explore de-escalation principles under BNSS 2023 Section 35 before making an arrest, as per Supreme Court directions.
On this section: De-escalation principles and alternatives to arrest; arresting officer directed to explore these provisions before making an arrest
-
Jaffar Ali Moosvi vs The State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When offences alleged against an accused are punishable with less than seven years imprisonment, the accused is entitled to be issued a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS by the Investigating Officer instead of being arrested, and the High Court should direct the Investigating Officer to issue such notice rather than granting anticipatory bail, thereby protecting the accused's rights while ensuring cooperation with the investigation.
On this section: Procedure for issuing notice to the accused instead of arrest when offences are punishable with less than seven years imprisonment; court directed Investigating Officer to issue such notice
-
State of Haryana vs DHANI
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 41, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal law, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused exclusively lies on the prosecution, which must prove the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused. When the prosecution fails to produce eyewitness evidence, best evidence (such as CCTV footage), medical evidence, and forensic evidence despite their availability, and when the testimonies of witnesses are contradictory, hearsay, or hostile, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the accused must be acquitted and given the benefit of doubt, as wrongful conviction of an innocent person is far more serious than wrongful acquittal.
On this section: Notice to be given before arrest. The court noted that the accused was given notice under this section during investigation.
-
Lalit Yadav vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 41, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has already been enlarged on bail in all related cases and the conditions under Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 are satisfied, bail should be granted in the main case as well, subject to strict conditions ensuring appearance and compliance with trial proceedings, in accordance with the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception.
On this section: Arrest without warrant; cited in one of the related cases
-
Sai Krupa Rice Mill vs State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal petitions seeking to quash FIR proceedings where the prescribed punishment for the alleged offences is less than seven years, the High Court should not quash the proceedings outright but should instead direct strict compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 35(3) of BNSS and the Arnesh Kumar guidelines by the Investigating Officer, while ensuring the accused cooperates with the investigation and the Investigating Officer considers the accused's defense before filing the final report.
On this section: Procedure to be followed by Investigating Officer during investigation; Court directed strict compliance with this section
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, on satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in sub-clause (3) of Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) (Section 41A of Cr.P.C). Issuance of notice under sub-clause (3) of Section 35 of the BNSS arises only in cases where the arrest of a person is not required under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the BNSS. Hence, the investigating officers who are …
-
… The main prayer in the writ petition is to give a direction to the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 to record the arrest of the petitioner's husband in all crimes registered against him within a time frame. The second prayer is to give a direction to respondent Nos. 3 to 7 to issue notice under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, 'the BNSS') to the petitioner's husband in all crimes registered hereafter alleging offences and circumstances of similar nature as of the crimes already registered. 2. I have heard Sri.K.Mohammed Rafeeq, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.V.Sreeja, …
Questions about Section 35
What have the courts held on Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (02 Jul 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 41, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: BNSS 35 is the successor arrest-without-warrant provision; Arnesh checklists carry forward. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 10 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 35, section 35 BNSS, section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 35 hindi and bnss 35 3 kya hai in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (02 Jul 2014).
What should I read with Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 39 (Arrest on refusal to give name and residence), section 394 (Order for notifying address of previously convicted offender), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 41 (When police may arrest without warrant), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, commonly called arrest without warrant, and cited as BNSS 35, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
- 401. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition810 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.