SAYED JASHIM AHMED Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to invoke the inherent powers of the Court available under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS] on being aggrieved by a Notice issued under S. 179, BNSS on 6/8/2025 through WhatsApp by the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case seeking his presence before him on that very day.

(2.) I have heard Mr. N.H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

(3.) Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in connection with Chapar Police Station Case no. 119/2025 and was arrested during the course of investigation of the said case. On an application being made for his release on bail, the petitioner was granted bail in connection with Chapar Police Station Case no. 119/2025 by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class [JMFC], Bilasipara on 5/8/2025. It has been submitted that the impugned Notice dtd. 6/8/2025 was served upon the petitioner at 12-20 p.m. on 6/8/2025 through WhatsApp. By the Notice, the petitioner was directed to appear before the I.O. of Chapar Police Station Case no. 119/2025 at 10-00 a.m. on 6/8/2025. Mr. Barbhuiya has made two fold submissions, firstly, a Notice under Sec. 179, BNSS could not have been served upon the petitioner as the petitioner has already been arraigned as an accused in the case and therefore, he cannot be considered as a witness as the provisions of Sec. 179, BNSS is meant only for witnesses; and secondly, a Notice under Sec. 179, BNSS could not have been served upon the petitioner through WhatsApp as such mode of service is not contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS.