JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to invoke the inherent powers of the Court available under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [ BNSS ] on being aggrieved by a Notice issued under Section 179 , BNSS on 06.08.2025 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 05.08.2025. It has been submitted that the impugned Notice dated 06.08.2025 was served upon the petitioner at 12-20 p.m. on 06.08.2025 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 06.08.2025. Mr. Barbhuiya has made two fold submissions, firstly, a Notice under Section 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 Section 179 , BNSS is meant only for witnesses; and secondly, a Notice under Section 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 . 4. Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has responded by submitting that an accused can be embraced within the ambit and scope of Section 179 , BNSS , which provision is pari materia to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’, or ‘CrPC’, for short]. 4. Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has responded by submitting that an accused can be embraced within the ambit and scope of Section 179 , BNSS , which provision is pari materia to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’, or ‘CrPC’, for short]. An accused like a witness is also a person who can be considered to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the petitioner cannot avoid the obligation of responding the Notice issued under Section 179 , BNSS only on the ground that he has already been arraigned as an accused because of his arrest. Mr. Kaushik has further submitted that as the petitioner was allowed to go on bail by an Order dated 05.08.2025, the I.O. of the case deemed it proper, in the interest of fair and expeditious investigation, to seek presence of the petitioner before him on the next date of his release i.e. on 06.08.2025 without having any knowledge about the facts projected in this criminal petition. Mr. Kaushik has placed reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani and another , [1978] 2 SCC 424 . 5. From the contentions and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, two issues have arisen for consideration, firstly, whether an accused falls within the provisions of Section 179 , BNSS to be served with a notice for his appearance; and secondly, whether a Notice under Section 179 , BNSS can be served upon an accused through WhatsApp without adopting to the normal mode of service set forth in the provisions of the BNSS for such kind of service. 6. Before deliberation on the issues involved, it appears appropriate to narrate the preceding events, briefly. 7. On 01.08.2025, a First Information Report [FIR] was lodged by one Nirmal Das as the informant before the Officer In-Charge, Chapar Police station stating inter alia that he was made to learn that a priority investigation was being undertaken by ‘ED’ and by messages and regular video-call conversations, the informant was asked to make payment of Rs. 1,67,93,385.20 to ‘ED’. As asked for, the petitioner had made payments of a total amount of Rs. 1,67,93,385.20/- to ‘ED’ during the period from 21.01.2025 to 09.05.2025. 1,67,93,385.20 to ‘ED’. As asked for, the petitioner had made payments of a total amount of Rs. 1,67,93,385.20/- to ‘ED’ during the period from 21.01.2025 to 09.05.2025. The informant had further stated that he was told that after submission of all the money receipts by which he made payments to ‘ED’, the amount would be refunded to him after three working days to his bank account maintained at Chapar Branch of the State Bank of India. In addition to the amount of Rs. 1,67,93,385.20/-, the petitioner stated to have deposited other amounts also totaling Rs. 1,70,39,444.20/-. Stating that the amount the informant had deposited was his whole life's savings and his daughter's future would be dependent on this amount, the informant requested for an investigation into the matter as the amount of Rs. 1,70,39,444.20/- deposited by him in favour of ‘ED’ was not refunded. 8. On receipt of the FIR, an inquiry was undertaken by a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Chapar Police Station at the instruction of the Officer In- Charge and upon inquiry, a report was submitted by him reporting that the offence committed were cognizable offenses. On receipt of the report, the FIR has been registered as Chapar Police Station Case no. 119/2025 under Sections 61 [2], 318[4] and 336[3] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [ BNS ] and a Sub-Inspector of Police has been entrusted to carry out the investigation on 01.08.2025. 9. The petitioner has claimed that he is a Tax Consultant by occupation and he assists in filing of Income Tax Returns, GST Returns, etc. He resides in a rented house located at Hatigaon, Guwahati. 10. According to the petitioner, it was at about 06-00 a.m. on 04.08.2025, the petitioner was picked up from his rental house by a team of Police personnel from Chapar Police Station and he was taken to Chapar Police Station in the evening hours on that day. On reaching the Chapar Police Station, the petitioner was arrested at around 07-30 p.m. on 04.08.2025 by serving an arrest memo/notice under Section 48 , BNSS to his younger brother. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested without serving any grounds of arrest with reasons in writing. As a result, the petitioner was unaware about the reasons for his arrest in connection with Chapar Police Station case no. 119/2025. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested without serving any grounds of arrest with reasons in writing. As a result, the petitioner was unaware about the reasons for his arrest in connection with Chapar Police Station case no. 119/2025. When the petitioner was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class [JMFC], Bilasipara, Dhubri on 05.08.2025 with a Forwarding Report of even date, it was mentioned before the learned Court that upon analysis of the bank account, an amount of Rs. 28,05,175/- was found credited to the account of one Hafizur Rahman at Bandhan Bank through RTGS from the bank account of the informant. 11. When an application for bail was moved on behalf of the petitioner before the Court of JMFC, Bilasipara, Dhubri on 05.08.2025, the petitioner was allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of the like amount. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the Forwarding Report, ‘text messages of suspicious transactions from different person and a business firm is seen’ as the reason for seeking police remand. It was urged before the Court that the grounds of arrest were vague and therefore, detention of the petitioner would be illegal. 12. The petitioner has stated that after the learned Court allowed the prayer for bail, the petitioner was released from custody at around 06-30 p.m. on 05.08.2025. After being released from custody, the petitioner went to Chapar Police Station at around 09-00 p.m. on 05.08.2025 to take his wearing apparels. Thereafter, he proceeded for Guwahati and he reached his rental house at Hatigaon at around 03-30 a.m. on 06.08.2025. As the petitioner was suffering from various ailments, he visited his Doctor at Arya Wellness Centre, GMCH Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati in the evening hours of 06.08.2025 and the doctors after examination, advised him for certain medical investigations and for rest. On 06.08.2025 and 07.08.2025, the petitioner had done the medical investigations, as advised by his doctors. 13. It is mentioned in the impugned Notice that it had been issued in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section [1] of Section 179 , BNSS . By the notice, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the case, that is, the Co-District Superintendent of Police, Bilasipara at 10-00 a.m. on 06.08.2025 at Chapar Police Station. 13. It is mentioned in the impugned Notice that it had been issued in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section [1] of Section 179 , BNSS . By the notice, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the case, that is, the Co-District Superintendent of Police, Bilasipara at 10-00 a.m. on 06.08.2025 at Chapar Police Station. In the notice, it is further mentioned that during the course of investigation of Chapar Police Station Case no. 119/2025, it is revealed that there are reasonable grounds to question the petitioner to ascertain facts and circumstances from him. 14. What is discernible from the impugned notice is that the notice has been shown to be served through WhatsApp. The notice has been sent to the WhatsApp number of the petitioner’s younger brother [Mobile no. 8292696737] at 12-20 p.m. on 06.08.2025. 15. Mr. Bharbhuiya has submitted that the petitioner’s phone number has already been seized in connection with the investigation of Chapar Police Station Case no. 119/2025. 16. Section 179 of the BNSS has a nominal heading, ‘Police Officer's power to require attendance of witnesses’. Sub-section [1] of Section 179 , BNSS has provided that any Police Officer making an investigation under Chapter XIII of the BNSS may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required. 17. As the other two provisions of Section 179 [1], BNSS are not relevant for the purpose of the case, the same are not extracted here. 18. The provisions of Section 179 , BNSS are pari materia to Section 160 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], which had the same nominal heading ‘Police Officer's power to require attendance of witnesses’. There is no difference in the provisions of Section 179 [1], BNSS and Section 160 [1], CrPC. Section 160 [1], CrPC has, however, one proviso unlike Section 179 [1], BNSS . Be that as it may. 19. The provisions of the words, ‘any person’ appearing in Section 160 [1], CrPC came up for consideration in Nandini Satpathy [supra]. There is no difference in the provisions of Section 179 [1], BNSS and Section 160 [1], CrPC. Section 160 [1], CrPC has, however, one proviso unlike Section 179 [1], BNSS . Be that as it may. 19. The provisions of the words, ‘any person’ appearing in Section 160 [1], CrPC came up for consideration in Nandini Satpathy [supra]. The point taken up for decision was whether the Police had power under Section 160 and Section 161 of the CrPC to question a person who, then was or, in the further might incarnate as, an accused person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had earlier held that the scope of Section 161 did include actual accused and suspects and therefore, it would deferentially agree. It was held that ‘any person’ would include persons then or ultimately accused. It was observed that ‘any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case' would include an accused person who would fill in that role because the Police would suppose him to have committed the crime and must, therefore, be familiar with the facts. The supposition might later prove a fiction but that would not repel the section. It was observed that the marginal note, ‘examination of witnesses by Police’ did not clinch the matter by observing that a marginal note might clear ambiguity but it would not control the meaning. It was observed that suppositious accused might figure functionally as a witness. Therefore, ‘to be a witness’, from a functional angle, is to impart knowledge in respect of a relevant fact. It was observed that the dichotomy between 'witnesses' and 'accused' are used as terms of art, would not hold good as to be held otherwise would amount to holding up investigative exercise since questioning suspects is desirable for detection of crime committed. 20. The interpretation given to the words, ‘any person’ appearing in Section 160 [1], CrPC, in the considered view of this Court, is also applicable to the words ‘any person’ appearing in Section 179 [1], BNSS . Meaning thereby, ‘any person’ appearing in Section 179 [1], BNSS includes an accused also. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the Notice dated 06.08.2025 issued to the petitioner is outside the purview of Section 179 [1], BNSS . 21. Meaning thereby, ‘any person’ appearing in Section 179 [1], BNSS includes an accused also. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the Notice dated 06.08.2025 issued to the petitioner is outside the purview of Section 179 [1], BNSS . 21. Admittedly, the notice was sent to the petitioner as the noticee through WhatsApp and that too, to the mobile number of the petitioner’s younger brother. 22. The mode of service of notice under Section 41-A, CrPC/ Section 35 , BNSS and similarly, notices issued under Section 160 , CrPC/ Section 179 , BNSS and Section 175 , CrPC/ Section 195 , BNSS have come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, [2022] 10 SCC 51. 23. In an Order passed in Miscellaneous Application no. 2034/2022 in MA no. 1849/2021 [ Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another ] in Special Leave Petition [Crl.] no. 1591/2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has inter-aila made the following directions :- [a] All the States / UTs must issue a Standing Order to their respective Police machinery to issue notices under Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973 / Section 35 of BNSS , 2023 only through the mode of service as prescribed under the CrPC, 1973 / BNSS , 2023. It is made amply clear that service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/ BNSS , 2023. [b] All the States / UTs while issuing Standing Orders to their respective Police machinery relating to Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/ Section 35 of BNSS , 2023 must be issued strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya [DCP] & Ors., 2021 SCC Online Del 5629 and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State [NCT Delhi], 2018 SCC Online Del 13448, both of which were upheld by this Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. [2022] 10 SCC 51. [2022] 10 SCC 51. [c] All the States / UTs must issue an additional Standing Order to their respective Police machinery to issue notices under Section 160 of CrPC, 1973 / Section 179 of BNSS , 2023 and Section 175 of CrPC, 1973 / Section 195 of BNSS , 2023 to the accused persons or otherwise, only through the mode of service as prescribed under the CrPC, 1973 / BNSS , 2023. [d] All the High Courts must hold meetings of their respective Committees for ‘Ensuring the Implementations of the Decisions of the Apex Court’ on a monthly basis, in order to ensure compliance of both the past and future directions issued by this Court at all levels, and to also ensure that monthly compliance reports are being submitted by the concerned authorities. 24. Subsequently, in another interlocutory application, I.A. No. 63691/2025 [ Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another ]’, arising out of M.A. no. 2034 of 2022, clarifications were sought with regard to the above directions. While answering, the provisions of Section 35 of the BNSS has been adverted to. It has been observed that Section 35 of the BNSS has provided for arrest of persons by the Investigating Agency, ensuring that the concerned persons appears before the Investigating Agency and cooperates with the investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after examining the consequences has observed that service of a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS , 2023 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. The Hon’ble Court has noted that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has specifically excluded the service of a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS , 2023 from the ambit of procedures permissible through electronic communication, that have been delineated under Section 530 of the BNSS , 2023. While interpreting a statute, the legislative intent is to be gathered from a plain and simple reading of the language employed in the provisions, in a purposive manner, thereby upholding the objective behind the enactment. While interpreting a statute, the legislative intent is to be gathered from a plain and simple reading of the language employed 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 communication for any other procedure, for which it has not been specifically permitted by the BNSS , 2023. 25. As a notice under Section 35 , BNSS could have an immediate bearing on the liberty of the individual in case of its non-compliance, it has been held that electronic communication is not a valid mode of service under Section 35 of the BNSS . Thereby, treating electronic communication as a valid mode of service of notice under Section 35 of the BNSS would be violative of its intent as it has not been specifically provided for by the legislature. The Hon’ble Court has also noted that the usage of electronic communication by the Investigating Agency has only been provided for effecting the procedure under Sections 94 and 193 of the BNSS . 26. Section 179 [1], BNSS has also provided that a noticee who has been served with a notice shall have to attend as required. In absence of any specific provision in the BNSS for effecting the notice under Section 179 [1] under the BNSS , the sending of the notice through WhatsApp or other electronic mode cannot be considered or recognized as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognized and prescribed under BNSS , 2023. As such, the impugned notice sent through WhatsApp to the petitioner is to be treated as an invalid one and it is accordingly observed. The Investigating Officer of the case, Chapar Police Station Case no. 119/2025 cannot, therefore, act any further on the basis of the said impugned Notice dated 06.08.2025. 27. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated therein, the two issues are answered. While the first issue is answered in the affirmative, the second issue is answered in the negative. Resultantly, the instant criminal petition is partly allowed. It is made clear that debarring the I.O. of the case, Chapar Police Station Case no. 27. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated therein, the two issues are answered. While the first issue is answered in the affirmative, the second issue is answered in the negative. Resultantly, the instant criminal petition is partly allowed. It is made clear that debarring the I.O. of the case, Chapar Police Station Case no. 119/2025 not to act further on the impugned Notice dated 06.08.2025 would not preclude him to call for the appearance of the petitioner under Section 179 , BNSS through the valid mode of service.