One police call can turn into questioning, detention, or arrest. Know your rights under BNSS before you walk into the station.
NEW DELHI: A police officer says, “Come to the station for five minutes. We only want to ask a few questions.”
Most people then make one of two mistakes: they panic and disappear, or they walk into the police station without asking why they were called.
Both can hurt you.
A police call may mean you are a witness. It may mean someone has made a complaint against you. It may mean an FIR already exists, and you are being treated as a suspect or accused.
These are legally different situations under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
So, do not evade a lawful notice. But do not go blindly either.
FIRST ASK: WHY AM I BEING CALLED?
Before leaving home, ask for:
- The officer’s name, rank and police station.
- Complaint or FIR number, if registered.
- Sections or offences involved, if available.
- Whether you are being called as a witness or as a person against whom allegations are being investigated.
- The written notice or order under which your attendance is required.
This distinction is critical.
Section 35 BNSS deals with arrest and notice of appearance where a reasonable complaint, credible information or reasonable suspicion exists against a person in a cognizable offence.
Section 179 BNSS deals with requiring the attendance of a person who appears acquainted with the facts of an investigation.
A PHONE CALL IS NOT THE SAME AS A LEGAL NOTICE
For a witness, Section 179(1) BNSS expressly provides for an order in writing requiring attendance.
Where arrest is not required in a cognizable case, Section 35(3) BNSS provides for a notice directing the concerned person to appear.
The Supreme Court has also clarified the service issue.
In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2026 INSC 115, the Supreme Court held in 2025 that service of a Section 35 notice through WhatsApp or other electronic communication cannot be treated as an “alternative or substitute” for the legally prescribed mode of service.
That does not mean you should ignore a police call.
Politely ask for proper notice and the details of the case. Procedure protects you better than confrontation.
IF YOU ARE A SUSPECT OR ACCUSED: SECTION 35 BNSS MATTERS
For a cognizable offence punishable up to seven years, a complaint by itself does not make arrest automatic.
Under Section 35(1)(b) BNSS, the officer must have reason to believe that the person committed the offence and must also consider arrest necessary for a statutory purpose, such as:
- preventing a further offence;
- proper investigation;
- preventing destruction or tampering of evidence;
- preventing threats, inducements or promises to witnesses; or
- ensuring the person’s presence before the Court.
The officer must record reasons in writing.
Where arrest is not required, Section 35(3) provides for notice of appearance. If the person complies and continues to comply, Section 35(5) says that the person shall not be arrested for the offence mentioned in the notice unless the officer records reasons and forms the opinion that arrest is necessary.
This is not a technical loophole. It is a statutory safeguard against using arrest as the default method of investigation.
SUPREME COURT 2026: NOTICE IS THE RULE, ARREST THE EXCEPTION
On 15 January 2026, the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 INSC 115, clarified the scope of Section 35 of the BNSS and reinforced the principle that arrest should not be used mechanically during investigation.
For offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, the Court held that issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS is the rule, while arrest under Section 35(6), read with Section 35(1)(b), is an exception that must be supported by legally sustainable reasons.
The Court stressed that the power of arrest must be exercised on the basis of “strict objective necessity” and not merely for the convenience of the investigating agency. In other words, the police’s power to arrest does not mean arrest is necessary in every case.
During the proceedings, Amicus Curiae Sidharth Luthra submitted that, unless the statutory conditions under Sections 35(1)(b)(i) and 35(1)(b)(ii) are satisfied, arrest in an offence punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years cannot be justified merely because allegations have been made.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati referred to the safeguards already recognised in Arnesh Kumar and the earlier Satender Kumar Antil decisions.
The Supreme Court ultimately reaffirmed a liberty-oriented interpretation of Section 35 BNSS: investigation does not automatically require custody, and arrest cannot become the default response to an accusation.
Importantly, even failure to comply with a notice under Section 35 does not, by itself, make arrest automatic. Where the police subsequently seek to arrest a person under Section 35(6), the decision must be supported by relevant material and circumstances justifying the need for arrest.
ARNESH KUMAR CONTINUES TO GOVERN THE PRINCIPLE AGAINST ROUTINE ARREST
The judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, remains one of the most important safeguards against unnecessary arrest in India.
Although the case arose from proceedings under Section 498A IPC, the Supreme Court laid down broader principles governing arrests in offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years.
The Court required investigating officers to ask fundamental questions before depriving a person of liberty:
“Why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose will it serve? What object will it achieve?”
The underlying principle is straightforward: having a statutory power to arrest is different from needing to exercise that power.
These safeguards have continued to influence the interpretation of the arrest provisions under the BNSS.
The statutory framework may have changed from the CrPC to the BNSS, but the constitutional concern remains the same—arrest cannot be treated as a routine consequence of an allegation.
This is particularly relevant in matrimonial and family disputes, where criminal complaints may be filed alongside ongoing personal litigation. An allegation may require investigation, but investigation and arrest are not legally synonymous. The police must independently satisfy the statutory requirements before taking a person into custody.
IF YOU ARE A WITNESS: SECTION 179 IS DIFFERENT
Under Section 179 BNSS, an investigating police officer may, by order in writing, require the attendance of a person within the limits of that police station or an adjoining station if that person appears acquainted with the facts of the case.
But Parliament has specifically protected certain categories.
A male below 15 years or above 60 years, a woman, a mentally or physically disabled person, or a person suffering from acute illness cannot be required to attend anywhere other than the place where that person resides.
They can, however, voluntarily attend the police station if willing.
Now read that provision carefully.
An adult man between 15 and 60 years does not receive this residence-only protection merely because he is a witness.
That is the law as written.
Which is precisely why a man receiving a police call should first know whether he is being required to attend under Section 179, being issued a Section 35 BNSS notice, or merely being contacted informally.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO INCRIMINATE YOURSELF
Cooperating with an investigation does not mean surrendering the right against self-incrimination.
Section 180(2) BNSS says that a person examined by police is bound to answer questions truthfully except questions whose answers would tend to expose that person to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture.
Article 20(3) of the Constitution separately protects an accused from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
In Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424, the Supreme Court made it clear that this protection reaches the stage of police interrogation. It does not suddenly begin only after you enter a courtroom.
Do not lie.
Do not manufacture facts.
Do not delete evidence.
But do not assume that sitting inside a police station gives the police an unlimited right to compel every answer from you.
DO NOT SIGN A POLICE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 180 BNSS
This is one of the most useful provisions people still do not know.
Under Section 180(3) BNSS, a police officer may reduce your statement during an investigation into writing. But Section 181(1) BNSS specifically provides that such a statement, if reduced to writing, shall not be signed by the person making it.
This does not mean you should refuse to sign every document at a police station. A notice acknowledgement, seizure memo or another document that legally requires your signature is different. The important question is: what exactly are you being asked to sign, and under which provision?
Also remember Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. A confession made to a police officer is generally not provable against an accused, and a confession made in police custody is generally not provable unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
But the provision contains the statutory discovery exception. So do not make the dangerous assumption that whatever you casually tell police can never have evidentiary consequences.
CAN YOUR LAWYER SIT THROUGH THE ENTIRE INTERROGATION?
Not as an absolute right.
Section 38 BNSS provides that when an arrested person is interrogated by police, he is entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, “though not throughout interrogation.”
On 27 July 2026, the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju expressly clarified that Section 38 does not create an unrestricted right to the lawyer’s continuous physical presence throughout every interrogation session.
So yes, a lawyer during police interrogation is an important right—but understand its actual legal scope instead of relying on social-media law.
Legal advice before entering the station can sometimes matter as much as what happens after you enter it.
THE CASE THAT BEGAN WITH A POLICE INQUIRY
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260, remains remarkably relevant to anyone who thinks an inquiry call can never become a custody problem.
The Senior Superintendent of Police called Joginder Kumar for inquiry. He appeared on 7 January 1994. He was kept in custody, and his family subsequently struggled to trace his whereabouts. The matter reached the Supreme Court.
The Court drew a line that still matters:
“No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so.”
The Court explained that the power to arrest and the justification for exercising it are two different things.
Three decades later, that remains one of the most important lessons in police inquiry rights in India.
IF THEY ARREST YOU AT THE STATION
If questioning turns into arrest, ask for the grounds of arrest and ask for your family or lawyer to be informed.
Article 22(1) of the Constitution protects the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and the right to consult a legal practitioner.
In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 162, the Supreme Court held that failure to properly communicate the grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) and can render the arrest illegal.
Article 22(2) also requires an arrested person to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey.
If you entered the police station voluntarily but are later told you cannot leave, do not guess your legal status.
Ask calmly:“Am I under arrest, or am I free to leave?”
WHAT TO DO BEFORE YOU GO
If police called you to the police station, follow this sequence:
- Verify the caller, police station and Investigating Officer.
- Ask whether a complaint or FIR exists and obtain its details.
- Ask in what capacity you are being called.
- Request the applicable written notice or order.
- Share the notice and police station details with family and legal counsel.
- Preserve call logs, messages and copies of notices.
- Take legal advice before giving lengthy written explanations or documents.
- Do not casually ignore a properly served lawful notice.
- Never threaten witnesses, delete evidence, fabricate documents or try to influence the investigation.
Fear makes people do two foolish things: overreact or over-cooperate. Procedure is safer than both.
FAQs
- Can police call me to the station without a written notice?
Police may call you, but formal attendance should follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 35 or 179 BNSS, depending on your status. - Can police arrest me after a Section 35 BNSS notice?
Not automatically. If you comply with the notice, police must separately justify an arrest with recorded reasons. - Can police force a woman to visit the police station as a witness?
Generally, no. Section 179 BNSS protects a woman from being required to attend anywhere other than her residence. - Can I refuse to answer police questions?
You cannot refuse everything, but Section 180(2) BNSS protects you from answering questions that may incriminate you. - Can my lawyer stay with me during police interrogation?
Not throughout. If arrested, Section 38 BNSS allows you to meet your lawyer during interrogation, but not remain continuously present.
