Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest – January 2025
Supreme Court:Plea In Supreme Court Challenges BSA's Electronic Evidence & Confession Provisions And BNS SectionsCase Title: Vinod Kumar Boinapally Versus Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 40/2025 (and connected case)Former MP Vinod Kumar Boinapally has moved the Supreme Court challenging certain provisions of the BNS and the BSA, which replaced the erstwhile penal laws viz. the IPC...
Supreme Court:
Plea In Supreme Court Challenges BSA's Electronic Evidence & Confession Provisions And BNS Sections
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Boinapally Versus Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 40/2025 (and connected case)
Former MP Vinod Kumar Boinapally has moved the Supreme Court challenging certain provisions of the BNS and the BSA, which replaced the erstwhile penal laws viz. the IPC and the Evidence Act.
Boinapally has filed two writ petitions before the Court. One of these challenges the constitutional vires of Sections 113 (Terrorist Act) and 152 (Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The other challenges Sections 61-63, second proviso to Section 22, explanation (II) to Section 24, and first proviso to Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam.
The Union Government has told the Supreme Court that there is no proposal to bring a separate law on bail as the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) are adequate.
The Supreme Court, in the 2022 judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation had recommended to the Union Government to bring a separate Bail Act to streamline the grant of bail. Last year, the Court had asked the Union to inform if a separate bail law was under contemplation.
Case : Satender Kumar Antil v CBI
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 112
The Supreme Court has directed that police should not serve notice for appearance to the accused/suspect as per Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) through WhatsApp or other electronic modes.
The Court made it amply clear that the 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.
Case : Hyder Ali v.State of Karnataka (2024)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that as per Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the 15-day police custody must be sought within the first forty days in cases of offences which are punishable upto ten years of imprisonment.
Delhi High Court:
Title: Suleman Samad V. State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 112
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the trial courts must promptly pass orders and must not mechanically adjourn bail applications moved in cases covered by Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where the undertrial prisoners have already undergone one half of the maximum imprisonment.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in case a judge proceeds on leave, it must be brought to the notice of the concerned Link Judge that such cases are to be taken up on priority, either on the next date or at the shortest possible date.
Kerala High Court:
Case Title: Arunkumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
The Kerala High Court recently held that the benefit of Section 479 of BNSS, particularly the first proviso thereof, cannot be applied retrospectively to convicted prisoners. For context, Section 479 BNSS deals with the maximum period of time for which a undertrial prisoner can be detained.
Justice C. S. Sudha noted that the Supreme Court by an order in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons has made Section 479 retrospectively applicable to undertrials in cases registered before July 1, 2024. The High Court said that the Apex Court has not given the benefit of the Section to convicted prisoners. Thus at this stage, Court said it cannot extend the benefit to convicts.
Case Title: Suby Antony v R1 (Deleted)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
The Kerala High Court has clarified that before issuing notice to an accused named in the complaint, the Magistrate must first examine the complainant and witnesses on oath as per Section 223 (1) of the BNSS. It further clarified that as per first proviso to Section 223 (1), if the Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence, the accused should be given an opportunity of hearing.
Justice V.G. Arun observed that the first proviso of Section 223(1) of the BNSS introduced a "radical change," as the corresponding provision in the CrPC, Section 200, did not require the accused to be heard before taking cognizance.
Case Title: Haseena v Suhaib
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a Muslim wife who is residing separately from her husband for contracting second marriage is not disentitled from claiming maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code or Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Justice Kauser Edappagath stated that even though Muslim law permits husband to contract second marriage during subsistence of first marriage, the husband is bound to treat both the wives equally.
Case Name: X V. State Of Kerala and other.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
The Kerala High Court recently (on January 06) held that criminal proceedings in cases involving serious allegations of sexual assault cannot be quashed, even at the instance of a victim.
The Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen thus dismissed the petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the victim/ complainant, seeking quashing of proceedings against the accused for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act.
Case Name: GEORGE P.O v. State of Kerala and another.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Kerala High Court has observed that Section 19 of POCSO Act which mandates reporting of POCSO offence is not carved out as an exception to Section 197 CrPC which pertains to requirement of sanction to prosecute public servants.
In doing so the court observed that Section 197 CrPC/Section 218 BNSS are meant to safeguard the public servants from being dragged into vexatious proceedings while discharging official duty.
Madhya Pradesh High Court:
The Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court recently clarified that the definition of 'victim' under Section 2(y) of BNSS does not cover the loss or injury suffered by any person in the past at the behest of the accused and thus, such persons cannot be allowed to object in subsequent cases filed against the accused by some other victim.
Punjab & Haryana High Court:
Case Title: Harlove Singh Rajput v. UOI & Ors.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Thursday (January 23) issued notice on a plea challenging Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which does not entitle an arrested person to meet with his lawyer "throughout" the interrogation.