Police Must Adhere to Statutory Safeguards and Procedural Fairness Under BNSS During Investigations.

The petitioner, a 31-year-old student running a private study center, alleged continuous police harassment due to his residential proximity to a notorious absconding gangster, Virendra Charan

The petitioner claimed that on May 19, 2024, police entered his home without a warrant, detained him for hours, seized his mobile phone without legal procedure, and published his photograph alongside criminals in local newspapers

He asserted that despite having no criminal record, he was being repeatedly summoned telephonically without formal notices under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution

1. Whether the alleged repeated summoning and detention of the petitioner by the police without following the procedural mandates of the BNSS constitutes an infringement of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

2. Whether the High Court, in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, should intervene in matters of police investigation and administrative supervision.

The Court primarily applied Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the protection of life, personal liberty, and individual dignity

It emphasized that any investigative exercise must be conducted within the "four corners of law" and in consonance with the procedural safeguards engrafted under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023

The Court also acknowledged the settled principle that while the police have the exclusive domain to maintain law and order, such powers must be exercised with procedural fairness and restraint

The Court observed that personal liberty and dignity are invaluable facets of the Constitution that the police cannot bypass under the guise of investigation

While acknowledging the police's duty to track proclaimed offenders, the Court noted that the investigating agency cannot transgress statutory safeguards

However, the Court declined to conduct a "meticulous adjudication" of the disputed factual allegations—such as the illegal seizure of the phone or the morning raid—under its Article 226 jurisdiction

Instead, it reasoned that the petitioner’s grievances regarding procedural lapses and harassment would be best addressed by a superior supervisory authority who can objectively examine the conduct of the local police

The IGP was directed to examine the grievances in their entirety and ensure that the investigative procedures prescribed under the BNSS and other laws are "scrupulously followed and adhered to in letter as well as spirit"

No specific finding of guilt was recorded against the officers, but the Court emphasized that law and order must be maintained without violating individual constitutional rights