SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1858 · Decided: 16-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. SUNDRESH, N KOTISWAR SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1858 : 2025 INSC 909
Satender Kumar Antil 
v. 
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
(I.A No. 63691 of 2025 
In 
M.A No. 2034 of 2022 
In 
M.A No. 1849 of 2021 
In 
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021)
16 July 2025
[M.M. Sundresh and  
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to whether the usage of electronic communication 
can also be extended to the procedure governing the service of 
a notice, contemplated u/s.35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha 
Sanhita, 2023.
Headnotes†
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.2, 35, 63, 64, 71, 
94, 193(3), 530 – Notice by the Investigating Agency – Usage 
of modes of electronic communication – Permissibility – Order 
passed by this Court directing the police machinery to issue 
notices u/s.41-A CrPC/s.35 of BNSS only through the mode 
of service as prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023; 
and that the service of the said notices through WhatsApp 
or other modes of electronic communication, cannot be 
considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute 
to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under 
the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023 – Modification of the said order  
sought:
Held: Electronic communication is not a valid mode of service of 
notice u/s.35, since its conscious omission is a clear manifestation 
of the legislative intent – Introducing a procedure into s.35, that 
has not been specifically provided for by the Legislature, would be 
violative of its intent – Legislature, in its wisdom, has specifically 
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 
1859
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
excluded the service of a notice u/s.35 from the ambit of procedures 
permissible through electronic communication, that have been 
delineated u/s.530 – It cannot be said that a notice u/s.35 falls 
within the same category as a summons u/s.71, and thus, since 
the latter allows electronic mode of service, the former must also 
be permitted to be transmitted electronically – Summons u/s.71 
has no immediate bearing on the liberty of an individual in case 
of its non-compliance – However, a notice u/s.35 could have an 
immediate bearing on the liberty of the individual in case of its non-
compliance – Summons issued by a Court u/ss.63 or 71, and a 
notice issued by the Investigating Agency u/s.35 travel on different 
footings and cannot be equated with each other – Summons 
issued by a Court is a judicial act, whereas a notice issued by the 
Investigating Agency is an executive act – Thus, the procedure 
prescribed for a judicial act cannot be read into the procedure 
prescribed for an executive act – Furthermore, the BNSS, 2023 
does not entirely preclude the use of electronic communication 
by the Investigating Agency – Legislature has envisioned the use 
of electronic communication, during the course of investigation, 
and upon completion of investigation by the Investigating Agency, 
specifically provided for u/ss.94(1) and 193(3) respectively – Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.41-A. [Paras 27, 38-40, 43]
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.35 – When police 
may arrest without warrant – Interpretation of s.35:
Held: s.35 contains an element of substantivity, which becomes 
evident from the discretion provided to the Investigating Agency – 
Substantive element is in the nature of a safeguard, especially when 
the liberty of an individual is involved – Procedure encapsulated in 
s.35(6), seeks to secure this fundamental right u/Art.21, protection 
of one’s liberty, from encroachment by the relevant Authority, and 
thus, any attempt to interpret the provision as a mere procedural 
one, would amount to rewriting the provision itself – Thus, service 
of a notice u/s.35 needs to be carried out in a manner that protects 
this substantive right, as non-compliance with the notice can have 
a drastic effect on the liberty of an individual – Constitution of 
India – Art.21. [Paras 24-26]
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Interpretation of:
Held: While interpreting a statute, the legislative intent is to be 
gathered from a plain and simple reading of the language employed 
1860
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in the provisions, in a purposive manner, thereby upholding the 
objective behind the enactment – On a plain reading of the BNSS, 
2023, the restrictions imposed by the Legislature on the use of 
electronic communication, to only certain procedures, precludes 
the use of electronic

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.