# Section 35 BNSS notice: when police must not arrest you **TL;DR:** Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the direct successor to Section 41A CrPC) requires police to issue a notice of appearance instead of arresting a person for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, unless recorded reasons justify arrest. Compliance with the notice generally protects against arrest, and a new Section 35(7) adds a further safeguard requiring prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police before arresting an infirm person or someone above sixty years of age in offences punishable with less than three years. This guide explains the threshold, the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar guidelines that shaped it, what a notice recipient should actually do, and how to challenge non-compliance before a Magistrate. --- ## On this page - [What Section 35 BNSS actually says](#what-section-35-bnss-actually-says) - [From Section 41A CrPC to Section 35 BNSS: what changed](#from-section-41a-crpc-to-section-35-bnss-what-changed) - [The seven-year threshold explained](#the-seven-year-threshold-explained) - [Arnesh Kumar guidelines: the case that forced this rule into practice](#arnesh-kumar-guidelines-the-case-that-forced-this-rule-into-practice) - [Section 35(3): what happens when you comply with the notice](#section-353-what-happens-when-you-comply-with-the-notice) - [When police can still arrest you despite compliance](#when-police-can-still-arrest-you-despite-compliance) - [The new Section 35(7) safeguard for senior citizens and infirm persons](#the-new-section-357-safeguard-for-senior-citizens-and-infirm-persons) - [What counts as "infirm" and who is a senior officer under 35(7)](#what-counts-as-infirm-and-who-is-a-senior-officer-under-357) - [Consequences when police ignore Section 35](#consequences-when-police-ignore-section-35) - [What to do if you receive a Section 35 notice: a step-by-step guide](#what-to-do-if-you-receive-a-section-35-notice-a-step-by-step-guide) - [Can a lawyer accompany you when you appear](#can-a-lawyer-accompany-you-when-you-appear) - [Section 35 and anticipatory bail: how they connect](#section-35-and-anticipatory-bail-how-they-connect) - [Section 35 and quashing of FIR](#section-35-and-quashing-of-fir) - [How to raise non-compliance before the Magistrate](#how-to-raise-non-compliance-before-the-magistrate) - [Section 35 notice vs summons vs FIR: quick comparison](#section-35-notice-vs-summons-vs-fir-quick-comparison) - [How Niyam helps with Section 35 BNSS research](#how-niyam-helps-with-section-35-bnss-research) - [Frequently asked questions](#frequently-asked-questions) - [Key takeaways](#key-takeaways) --- ## What Section 35 BNSS actually says Section 35 of the BNSS governs when a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant, and it builds in a mandatory brake before that arrest happens for most cognizable offences. The section carries forward the structure of the old Section 41 and Section 41A CrPC, but it renumbers and reorganises the sub-clauses. Sub-section (1) lists the grounds on which a police officer may arrest without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, largely mirroring Section 41 CrPC. Sub-section (3) is the operative safeguard, it says that where the arrest of a person is not required under sub-section (1), the police officer shall issue a notice directing the person to appear before him, or such other officer as directed, at a specified time and place. This notice is often called a "notice of appearance" or a "35(3) notice", and functionally it is identical to what practitioners for a decade called a "41A notice". If you were arrested for a matter, or fear arrest, and want to understand your remedies quickly, our guide on [anticipatory bail under BNSS Section 482](/blog/anticipatory-bail-bnss-section-482) explains the connected relief. ## From Section 41A CrPC to Section 35 BNSS: what changed Section 41A was inserted into the CrPC in 2009 through the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, effective from November 2010. It was a direct legislative response to widespread and casual use of arrest power by police in even minor, bailable matters. When the BNSS replaced the CrPC from 1 July 2024, Section 41A's substance moved into Section 35 with the same policy intent, no arrest without necessity, notice first wherever possible. The renumbering matters practically because FIRs, chargesheets, and case law after July 2024 cite Section 35 BNSS, while anything before that date and most precedent still refers to Section 41A CrPC. If you are researching case law or drafting a petition, always check both numbers, our [BNSS CrPC section mapping guide](/blog/bnss-crpc-section-mapping) has the full old-to-new table for quick cross-referencing. One material addition in the BNSS version is sub-section (7), a new protection for infirm and elderly persons that did not exist in Section 41A CrPC. We cover that addition in detail further below because it is one of the more consequential changes lawyers need to flag to clients over sixty. ## The seven-year threshold explained The core operative rule sits in Section 35(1)(b) read with sub-section (3): for an offence where imprisonment may extend to seven years, whether with or without a fine, arrest is not automatic. The police officer must first form a "reason to believe" that the person has committed the offence, based on credible information. Even after forming that belief, arrest is permitted only if the officer additionally believes arrest is necessary for one of the listed purposes. Those purposes include preventing the person from committing further offences, proper investigation, preventing tampering with evidence, preventing the person from influencing witnesses, or ensuring the person's presence in court whenever needed. If none of those grounds exist, or the officer does not record satisfaction of them, arrest under this threshold offence category is not permitted, and a notice under Section 35(3) must be issued instead. The seven-year line is not arbitrary, it tracks the classification many bailable, less serious cognizable offences fall under, including most cheque bounce matters, many property disputes, and simple hurt cases. For context on how this interacts with bail categories generally, see our explainer on [bailable versus non-bailable offences](/blog/bailable-vs-non-bailable.mdx). Where the offence is punishable with more than seven years, or with death or life imprisonment, this notice-first mechanism under Section 35(3) does not apply in the same mandatory way, and ordinary arrest powers under Section 35(1)(a) and related grounds continue. ## Arnesh Kumar guidelines: the case that forced this rule into practice Section 41A existed on paper from 2010, but police compliance was patchy for years, particularly in dowry harassment complaints under the erstwhile Section 498A IPC. In *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar*, the Supreme Court in 2014 confronted exactly this problem, where a man was arrested in a matrimonial dispute without any application of mind to the necessity of arrest. The Court laid down binding directions requiring police officers to record reasons in writing before making an arrest in cases punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less. It directed that all state governments instruct police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498A IPC (now largely mirrored in BNS provisions on cruelty) is registered, but to satisfy the necessity criteria under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) CrPC first. The Court also directed Magistrates to satisfy themselves, on the basis of the recorded reasons, before authorising detention. It went further and warned that police officers who did not comply would be liable for departmental action and also for contempt of court proceedings, to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. *Arnesh Kumar* remains the leading authority cited in virtually every subsequent judgment on Section 41A CrPC and now on Section 35 BNSS, and its directions have been treated as continuing in force under the new code because the statutory text carries forward the same scheme. Courts across India have repeatedly reaffirmed these directions in later matters, including in cases dealing with arrests in matrimonial and commercial disputes where police skipped the notice step entirely. ## Section 35(3): what happens when you comply with the notice If you receive a notice under Section 35(3) and you comply with its terms, meaning you appear at the specified time and place and continue to appear as required, the statute is explicit about the consequence. Section 35(3) states that where such a notice is complied with, the person shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice, unless for reasons to be recorded the officer is of the opinion that the person ought to be arrested. This is the heart of the protection, compliance creates a presumption against arrest, it does not create an absolute immunity. Read together with sub-section (4), if the person to whom the notice is issued fails to comply with its terms, or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to an order of a competent court, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice. In practice this means three outcomes flow from a notice: you comply and are ordinarily left free pending investigation, you comply but the officer still arrests you for recorded reasons, or you fail to comply and become liable to arrest, potentially with court sanction. The phrase "recorded reasons" is doing significant legal work in each of these branches, and it is the single most litigated phrase in this area of law. ## When police can still arrest you despite compliance Compliance with a Section 35(3) notice is not a guarantee against arrest, and this is a point many first-time notice recipients misunderstand. The statute permits arrest even after full compliance, but only where the officer forms a fresh opinion, distinct from the original decision to issue a notice, that arrest is now necessary. Crucially, this opinion must be reduced to writing, it cannot be a verbal or after-the-fact justification produced only when challenged in court. The requirement to record reasons in writing is not a procedural formality, it is the safeguard that allows a Magistrate, and eventually a High Court, to test whether the arrest decision was arbitrary. Courts have consistently held that failure to record such reasons renders the subsequent arrest and remand vulnerable to challenge, and in appropriate cases can result in the arrest itself being declared illegal. If you are ever shown, or told about, a recorded reason for arrest despite your compliance, ask for it in writing and note the officer's name, rank, and the exact wording, this becomes central evidence if you later move for bail or challenge the arrest. Genuine new facts, such as fresh evidence of witness tampering discovered after the notice was issued, or the person's own conduct suggesting flight risk, can justify this course, but a bare assertion of "investigation requires custody" without specifics generally does not meet the bar the Supreme Court has set. ## The new Section 35(7) safeguard for senior citizens and infirm persons Section 35(7) is a genuinely new addition in the BNSS that had no direct counterpart in Section 41A CrPC. It provides that no person who is infirm or is above the age of sixty years shall be arrested for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than three years, without the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. This raises the bar meaningfully for a specific vulnerable class, and it applies even where the general seven-year notice mechanism under Section 35(1) and (3) might otherwise permit arrest with recorded reasons. The rationale is straightforward, elderly and infirm accused persons are less likely to abscond, tamper with evidence physically, or pose the practical risks that justify custodial arrest, and Parliament chose to write an extra procedural layer specifically for this group. Practically, this means a local police station cannot, on its own authority, arrest a seventy-year-old accused in a minor cheating case punishable with two years imprisonment, the file must first go up to a DSP-rank officer for permission. If this permission is not obtained and documented, the arrest is procedurally defective and can be challenged on that basis alone, independent of the merits of the underlying case. ## What counts as "infirm" and who is a senior officer under 35(7) The BNSS does not define "infirm" with a precise medical checklist, and this ambiguity is likely to generate litigation as courts interpret the term case by case. Ordinarily, courts and practitioners read "infirm" to include physical or mental incapacity that substantially impairs a person's ability to move, communicate, or care for themselves, evidenced through medical records, disability certificates, or clear physical presentation. Age above sixty is comparatively simple to establish, a birth certificate, Aadhaar, PAN, passport, or voter ID typically suffices, and police are expected to verify this before proceeding to arrest without the DSP-level permission. The phrase "officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police" sets a clear rank floor, in most state police hierarchies this corresponds to an Assistant Commissioner of Police in metropolitan commissionerates or a Sub-Divisional Police Officer in district set-ups. A constable, Sub-Inspector, or even an Inspector cannot authorise this arrest on their own signature, the file must be escalated, and the permission should ideally be a written order rather than a verbal go-ahead noted in the case diary after the fact. If a family member of an elderly or unwell relative is contacted for an arrest under a minor offence, immediately ask which officer of DSP rank or above granted permission, and ask to see it in writing. If arrest does happen, understanding what follows next, including how [police remand differs from judicial custody](/blog/police-remand-vs-judicial-custody), helps the family plan the next steps without panic. ## Consequences when police ignore Section 35 The Supreme Court in *Arnesh Kumar* was unambiguous about consequences, and later benches have repeated the same framework. Failure to comply with the directions on recording reasons and issuing notices, where mandated, attracts departmental action against the defaulting officer, to be taken by the concerned state government. It also attracts liability for contempt of court, to be instituted before the jurisdictional High Court, since these are treated as binding directions issued in the exercise of the Supreme Court's constitutional powers. Beyond these institutional consequences, the person who was wrongly arrested has an immediate practical remedy, applying for bail on the specific ground that the arrest violated Section 35 and the associated guidelines. Multiple High Courts have granted bail, and in some instances passed strictures against investigating officers, purely on the basis that no notice was issued or no reasons were recorded before arrest in a case falling within the seven-year bracket. In some fact patterns, an aggrieved person has also pursued compensation through writ jurisdiction under Article 226, though such relief depends heavily on the specific facts, the extent of custody suffered, and whether malice or gross negligence can be shown. Our guide on [Article 226 versus Article 227](/blog/article-226-vs-227) explains when writ jurisdiction is the right route for a grievance like this. ## What to do if you receive a Section 35 notice: a step-by-step guide **Step one, read the notice carefully and note every detail.** Check the police station name, the FIR or case number if mentioned, the offence sections cited, the date and time you are asked to appear, and the officer's name and rank. **Step two, do not ignore it and do not panic.** A Section 35(3) notice is not itself an accusation of guilt, it is a procedural instrument, but ignoring it converts your position from "notice compliant" to "notice defaulter", which materially worsens your legal standing. **Step three, consult a lawyer before you appear, even briefly.** A short consultation can tell you whether the offence cited actually falls within the seven-year bracket, whether the notice is properly worded, and whether there is a reason to seek anticipatory bail before appearing rather than after. **Step four, gather relevant documents.** Depending on the nature of the case, this may include identity proof, any prior correspondence with the complainant, contracts, bank statements, or medical records if age or infirmity under Section 35(7) is relevant. **Step five, appear at the specified time and place, or seek a lawful adjournment in writing.** If you cannot appear on the given date for a genuine reason, communicate this in writing to the investigating officer well before the date, and keep a copy or proof of delivery. **Step six, cooperate with the investigation without waiving your rights.** You can answer questions relevant to the investigation while still declining to make self-incriminating statements, and you retain the right to have a lawyer present nearby, discussed in the next section. **Step seven, ask for a copy of the notice and any subsequent order.** If the officer later decides to arrest you despite compliance, insist on seeing the recorded reasons in writing, this is your entitlement under the statute as interpreted in *Arnesh Kumar*. **Step eight, if you believe arrest is imminent despite compliance, consider anticipatory bail immediately.** Do not wait until you are actually taken into custody, courts have granted anticipatory bail specifically to protect notice-compliant individuals from arbitrary arrest. ## Can a lawyer accompany you when you appear Yes, and this is one of the most practically important rights connected to a Section 35 notice, though it is often misunderstood. The right derives from Section 41D CrPC's successor provision in the BNSS and from constitutional protection under Article 22(1), which guarantees the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice. The settled position is that an arrested or notice-bound person has the right to meet an advocate of their choice during interrogation, though not necessarily throughout the entire interrogation in the same room continuously. The practical formulation followed by police and courts is that the lawyer may be present within visible distance, though not within hearing distance, during questioning. This allows the advocate to observe that no coercion, threats, or improper conduct occur, while preserving the investigating officer's ability to question the person without a lawyer scripting every answer in real time. Before appearing pursuant to any notice, it is advisable to inform the investigating officer in writing that you will be accompanied by your advocate, this creates a contemporaneous record if any dispute arises later about what happened during questioning. If a lawyer is denied access outright, that itself becomes a fact worth documenting and can be raised before the Magistrate or in a subsequent bail application. ## Section 35 and anticipatory bail: how they connect Section 35 and anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS (the successor to Section 438 CrPC) operate at different points on the same timeline but reinforce each other. A Section 35 notice tells you that the police have decided not to arrest you immediately and want you to appear, anticipatory bail is what you seek when you fear arrest is still coming, whether before or despite a notice. In practice, many lawyers advise clients who receive a Section 35(3) notice in a serious matter to file for anticipatory bail concurrently, rather than relying purely on the notice's protective language. This is because sub-section (3) itself carves out an exception, "unless for reasons to be recorded the officer is of the opinion that the person ought to be arrested", and a court-granted anticipatory bail order closes that loophole far more securely than statutory language alone. Courts have also treated a person's diligent compliance with a Section 35(3) notice as a positive factor when deciding an anticipatory bail application, since it demonstrates the absence of flight risk and a cooperative attitude toward investigation. For a full walkthrough of the anticipatory bail process, including drafting and filing steps, read our detailed guide on [anticipatory bail under BNSS Section 482](/blog/anticipatory-bail-bnss-section-482). If your matter later moves to a regular bail application because arrest has already occurred, our companion piece on [drafting a bail application](/blog/drafting-bail-application-guide) covers the required grounds and structure. ## Section 35 and quashing of FIR A parallel remedy some notice recipients consider is quashing of the FIR itself under Section 528 BNSS (the successor to Section 482 CrPC's inherent powers provision, note the section number overlap is a frequent source of confusion since 482 CrPC and 482 BNSS now mean different things). Quashing challenges the very existence of the criminal proceeding, typically on the ground that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose a cognizable offence, or that the FIR is manifestly mala fide. This is a distinct remedy from the Section 35 notice process, a notice challenge is about the manner of investigation and arrest, quashing is about whether the prosecution should proceed at all. The two remedies are frequently pursued together, for instance in matrimonial disputes where the underlying complaint is contested as an abuse of process, our article on [Section 498A misuse and quashing](/blog/section-498a-misuse-quashing) discusses this pattern in detail. Our explainer on [BNSS Section 528 inherent powers](/blog/bnss-section-528-inherent-powers) covers the quashing jurisdiction itself if you want the full procedural picture. If a notice recipient believes the underlying FIR itself is defective, for instance because it fails to disclose specific allegations against them, our piece on [FIR quashing orders and the requirement to state allegations](/blog/fir-quashing-orders-must-state-allegations) is directly relevant. ## How to raise non-compliance before the Magistrate If the police have arrested you, or a family member, without issuing a mandatory Section 35(3) notice, or without recording reasons where required, this can and should be raised at the very first opportunity, typically the remand hearing. **First, when produced before the Magistrate within twenty-four hours of arrest, the defence advocate should specifically point out the absence of a notice or recorded reasons.** The Magistrate is required, per *Arnesh Kumar*, to peruse the report and satisfy himself that the police officer has recorded reasons before authorising detention. **Second, if the Magistrate authorises detention without this scrutiny, this can be challenged through a bail application before the same court, or in appropriate cases before the Sessions Court or High Court.** The application should set out, with specific dates and facts, that no notice under Section 35(3) was served, or that no written reasons were shown despite compliance, or that Section 35(7) permission was not obtained where the accused is elderly or infirm. **Third, request the case diary and any station diary entries relevant to the arrest decision, these often reveal whether the process was actually followed or merely claimed after the fact.** **Fourth, if the violation is serious and repeated, consider a separate representation to the Superintendent of Police or Director General of Police for departmental action against the officer, alongside the bail application.** **Fifth, in an appropriate case, a contempt petition can be filed before the High Court citing the specific *Arnesh Kumar* directions that were violated, though this is typically reserved for clear and serious non-compliance rather than every technical lapse.** Documenting everything contemporaneously, the notice if one exists, the time of arrest, any request for a lawyer, and the absence of written reasons, makes each of these five steps far more effective. ## Section 35 notice vs summons vs FIR: quick comparison | Feature | Section 35 BNSS notice | Summons (Section 63 BNSS) | FIR registration | |---|---|---|---| | Purpose | Avoid unnecessary arrest, secure appearance | Compel appearance in a pending case or inquiry | Formally record a cognizable offence | | Issued by | Investigating police officer | Court or Magistrate | Police station on receiving information | | Stage | During investigation, pre-arrest | Trial, inquiry, or investigation stage | At the start of a criminal case | | Non-compliance risk | Arrest becomes permissible with court sanction | Warrant of arrest can be issued | Not applicable, this is the starting document | | Lawyer presence during process | ✓ Permitted, within visible distance | ✓ Applicable if questioning occurs | ✗ Not applicable at registration stage | | Governs custodial risk directly | ✓ Yes, this is its core function | ✗ Indirect | ✗ Indirect | | Applies only up to 7-year offences (mandatory form) | ✓ Yes | ✗ No such cap | ✗ No such cap | For a full breakdown of how a legal notice differs from a police notice and a court summons, see our guide on [legal notice versus police notice versus summons](/blog/legal-notice-vs-police-notice-vs-summons). ## How Niyam helps with Section 35 BNSS research Niyam's legal research tools let you pull up the exact text of Section 35 BNSS alongside its predecessor Section 41A CrPC, so you are not guessing which version applies to your facts. You can search for High Court and Supreme Court judgments that cite *Arnesh Kumar* directions in the context of a specific offence, narrowed by court, date, and outcome, rather than sifting through generic search results. For a lawyer drafting a bail application or a representation to a Superintendent of Police about non-compliance, Niyam's drafting assistance helps structure the factual narrative around the specific sub-sections violated, citing the correct statutory language. None of this replaces independent legal judgment, every case turns on its specific facts, but it removes the friction of manually cross-referencing renumbered sections and scattered case law. Where a case eventually moves toward a negotiated resolution rather than trial, our guide on [plea bargaining in India](/blog/plea-bargaining-india) explains that separate track and how it differs from the arrest and notice stage covered here. ## Frequently asked questions ### What is a Section 35 BNSS notice? It is a written notice a police officer must issue instead of arresting a person, where the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and arrest is not otherwise necessary under the listed grounds in Section 35(1). ### Is Section 35 BNSS the same as Section 41A CrPC? Yes, Section 35 BNSS is the direct successor provision to Section 41A CrPC, carrying forward the same core scheme with some additions, including the new Section 35(7) safeguard for elderly and infirm persons. ### What happens if I ignore a Section 35 notice? If you fail to comply with the notice's terms, the police officer may arrest you for the offence mentioned in the notice, subject to an order of a competent court under Section 35(4). ### Does complying with the notice guarantee I will not be arrested? No, compliance ordinarily protects you from arrest, but Section 35(3) allows arrest even after compliance if the officer records specific reasons for why arrest has become necessary. ### What are the Arnesh Kumar guidelines? They are directions issued by the Supreme Court in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* in 2014, requiring police to record reasons before arrest in offences punishable up to seven years, and requiring Magistrates to verify those reasons before authorising further detention. ### Do the Arnesh Kumar guidelines still apply under BNSS? Yes, courts have treated these directions as continuing to apply because Section 35 BNSS preserves the same statutory scheme that the guidelines were interpreting under Section 41A CrPC. ### What is the seven-year threshold for? It marks the category of offences where arrest is not automatic on registration of a case, the police must first consider whether arrest is genuinely necessary before resorting to it, and issue a notice if it is not. ### What is Section 35(7) and who does it protect? It is a new BNSS provision requiring prior permission from an officer of at least DSP rank before arresting an infirm person or someone above sixty years of age, in offences punishable with less than three years imprisonment. ### What counts as an infirm person under Section 35(7)? The BNSS does not define it precisely, courts generally look at physical or mental incapacity substantially impairing a person's normal functioning, supported by medical or disability documentation. ### Can police arrest a 65-year-old without any permission at all? Not for an offence punishable with less than three years, they need prior permission from an officer not below DSP rank, without it the arrest is procedurally defective. ### Can I bring a lawyer when I appear for a Section 35 notice? Yes, you have a right to consult and be represented by an advocate, and your lawyer can be present within visible distance during questioning, though not necessarily within hearing distance of every exchange. ### What should I do first if I receive a Section 35 notice? Read it carefully, note the offence sections and appearance date, and consult a lawyer promptly to assess whether the offence falls within the protected bracket and whether anticipatory bail should be filed alongside. ### Should I apply for anticipatory bail even if I already have a notice? Many lawyers recommend it in serious matters, since the notice's protection has a built-in exception for recorded reasons, and a court order closes that gap more securely. ### What is the difference between a Section 35 notice and quashing an FIR? A notice challenge concerns the manner and necessity of arrest during investigation, quashing challenges whether the criminal case should proceed at all, and the two are often pursued together in appropriate cases. ### What happens if police arrest me without issuing a notice first? This can be raised at the remand hearing before the Magistrate, and later through a bail application citing the *Arnesh Kumar* directions and the absence of recorded reasons. ### Can a police officer be punished for ignoring Section 35? Yes, the Supreme Court has held that non-compliance can attract departmental action by the state government and contempt of court proceedings before the jurisdictional High Court. ### Does Section 35 apply to all criminal offences? The mandatory notice mechanism under sub-sections (1) and (3) applies specifically to offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, offences carrying higher punishment fall outside this specific protective scheme. ### Can the police change their mind and arrest me weeks after I complied with the notice? If new facts emerge that genuinely justify arrest, and the officer records those reasons in writing, this is permitted, but a stale or unexplained decision to arrest long after full compliance is vulnerable to challenge. ### Is a Section 35 notice the same as an FIR copy? No, a notice of appearance is a separate document directing you to appear before an officer, it is not the FIR itself, though it usually references the FIR or case number under investigation. ### Where can I check whether an offence falls within the seven-year bracket? The punishment prescribed for each offence is set out in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or the relevant special statute, and this should be checked section by section rather than assumed from the general nature of the allegation. ## Key takeaways - Section 35 BNSS is the direct successor to Section 41A CrPC, requiring a notice of appearance instead of arrest for offences punishable up to seven years, unless arrest is genuinely necessary and reasons are recorded. - Compliance with the notice protects against arrest, but Section 35(3) carves out an exception where the officer records fresh reasons justifying arrest despite compliance. - *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* (2014) remains the governing precedent, requiring written reasons before arrest and Magistrate-level scrutiny of those reasons before authorising detention. - Section 35(7) is a new BNSS addition requiring prior permission from a DSP-rank officer before arresting an infirm person or someone above sixty in offences carrying less than three years imprisonment. - Non-compliance by police exposes officers to departmental action and contempt of court proceedings before the High Court. - A notice recipient should read the notice carefully, consult a lawyer promptly, gather documents, appear or seek written adjournment, and insist on recorded reasons if arrest is threatened despite compliance. - A lawyer can accompany you during questioning, present within visible distance, and this right should be asserted in writing before appearing. - Anticipatory bail and FIR quashing are complementary remedies that address arrest risk and the underlying case respectively, and are often pursued alongside a Section 35 notice response. - Non-compliance by police with Section 35 can and should be raised at the very first remand hearing, and followed up with a bail application or representation for departmental action where warranted.