Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: June 2025
SUPREME COURT Complainant In S.138 NI Act Case Can File Appeal Against Acquittal As 'Victim' Under S.372 Proviso CrPC: Supreme Court Case : M/s Celestium Financial v A Gnanasekaran Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 666 In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a complainant in a cheque dishonour case for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments...
SUPREME COURT
Case : M/s Celestium Financial v A Gnanasekaran
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 666
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a complainant in a cheque dishonour case for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a "victim" within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 2(y) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita], who can file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC [Section 413 of the BNSS].
"In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Section 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the victim owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an option and he need not then elect to proceed under Section 378 of the CrPC," held a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case title - Sudhir @ Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia vs. State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home And 3 Others
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has held that with the enforcement of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, anticipatory bail plea would now be maintainable in NDPS Act cases in the state of Uttar Pradesh, as the previous bar under the state's CrPC amendment has effectively been repealed by the BNSS.
A bench of Justice Manish Mathur ruled that with the enactment of the BNSS, the restriction imposed by the Criminal Procedure Code (UP Amendment) Act, 2018, specifically Section 438(6), which barred anticipatory bail in NDPS Act cases, no longer holds effect.
The Court held that BNSS, being a central legislation, overrides the state-specific amendment to the CrPC, and thus, the bar on anticipatory bail in such cases in Uttar Pradesh stands removed.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Case title:Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 710
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an accused under the Arms Act, 1959 cannot seek default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 merely on the ground that the chargesheet filed against him in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS, lacks the sanction to prosecute.
Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is mandatory to prosecute a person for offences under Sections 25/ 27.
Justice Tejas Karia conceded that if an incomplete chargesheet is filed by the prosecution, it gives rise to the right of default bail, even if the same is filed within the prescribed period.
However, the bench added,
“chargesheet filed by the investigating agency for offences under the Arms Act 1959, without obtaining sanction under Section 39, does not render the chargesheet incomplete and accused cannot for the purposes of seeking under Section 193(3) of the BNSS.”
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Case Title: Bittu Kumar v State of Assam (Bail Appln./1662/2025)
The Gauhati High Court, in an order dated June 2, emphasized that in cases where an arrestee is not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of arrest due to medical urgency, the magistrate must verify the status of such arrestee. The court remarked that even in such cases the magistrate has to, either through a personal visit or video conferencing, verify the status of the arrestee by passing a remand order to judicial or police custody.
The bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita held, "Section 187 of BNSS categorically states that subject to condition of bail, the Magistrate may authorize his detention either in judicial or in police custody. Unless, such an order is passed, the initial arrest of the petitioner beyond the period of 24 hours from the time of his arrest, would become illegal".
Case Title: Nazir Hussain & 3 Ors. v. State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 26
The Gauhati High Court recently held that the embargo under Section 482(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on granting anticipatory bail will apply to offences either under Section 65 or Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The Court held that the word "and" appearing in Section 482(4) must be read as "or" to give effect to the intention of the legislature.
Section 65 of the BNS deals with the offence of rape of a woman aged below 16 years of age. Section 70(2) deals with the offence of gangrape of a woman aged under the age of 18 years of age.
The Gauhati High Court recently (June 20) notified the Rules for use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means, to avoid delay in judicial proceeding due to non-availability of parties, advocates, witnesses and accused physically.
Significant to note that Section 530 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides that all trials, inquires and proceedings including examination of complainant and witnesses, recording of evidence in inquiries and trials and all appellate proceedings or any other proceeding, may be held in electronic mode.
The Court thus framed the Rules in exercise of its powers conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution and all other enabling sections of the BNSS.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Police Cannot Attach Bank Account Under S.107 BNSS Without Magistrate's Approval: Kerala High Court
Case title: Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. V. State Of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
The Kerala High Court held that a bank account can be attached under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, only on the orders of the jurisdictional Magistrate and that police cannot uniterally do so.
Section 107 BNSS is a new provision which provides for the attachment of "proceeds of crime."
Firstly, the Court noted that the police has the power to seize/freeze a bank account as per Section 102 CrPC, which holds that any police officer can seize any property, which is either stolen property or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
The Court noted that the CrPC earlier lacked a specific provision for seizure or attachment of proceeds of crime, except under Chapter VII-A relating to foreign jurisdictions. This gap has been addressed under BNSS, 2023, by retaining Section 102 as Section 106 and introducing Section 107, which now governs the attachment of properties derived from criminal activity.
Case Title: Saji John and Another v Assistant Director
Case No: Crl.MC 5631 of 2025
The Kerala High Court has issued an interim order exempting former Revenue Divisional Officer Saji John and his wife Bindhu Saji from appearing before the CBI/ ED Court in Ernakulam in connection with a money laundering case, till July 03.
The direction was passed on the duo's plea against summons, allegedly issued without giving them an opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 223(1) of BNSS.
The provision prescribes that a Magistrate shall not take cognizance of an offence on a complaint without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Satish Sood v Registrar General (WP No. 20899 of 2025)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued notice on a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of a provision under the MP High Court Rules 2008 mandating prior surrender by a convicted person as a pre-condition to challenge the conviction order.
The plea asserts that Rule 48 is ultra vires the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which does not impose any such precondition of prior surrender before the filing of an appeal or revision. It contends that the rule infringes upon the rights of a convicted person under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that by imposing an additional condition not contemplated by BNSS, Rule 48 exceeds the rule-making power of the High Court and is thus ultra vires the parent legislation.
It thus seeks a direction to declare Rule 48 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules 2008, insofar as it imposes a mandatory condition of prior surrender by a convicted person as a precondition for the maintainability of a criminal revision, as "ultra vires and is violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India". It further seeks that the Rule be struck down to the extent of the pre-condition. and accordingly, be pleased to strike down the said Rule to that extent.
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 77
The Orissa High Court has held that merely mentioning a wrong sub-section in the charge-sheet will not render an entire investigation a nullity/illegal. While deciding the effect of such trivial error on the criminal proceedings, Justice Savitri Ratho held –
“In view of Section 193(9) of the BNSS, merely because a wrong sub section has been mentioned in the charge sheet i.e. Subsection 193(8) instead of Section 193(9), it will not render the investigation illegal or non-est.”
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Title: Mohammad Abid & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
The Rajasthan High Court recently noted that Section 170 of the BNSS conferred “limited preventive jurisdiction” to the Executive Magistrate and that such preventive action was not a tool for punitive action or a substitute for criminal procedure.
Section 170 of BNSS empowers a police officer to arrest a person without a warrant if they have knowledge of a potential commission of cognisable offence and believe that the commission of offence cannot be otherwise prevented.
Justice Farjand Ali criticised the action of an Executive Magistrate in detaining persons and granting them bail on an extra-statutory condition of producing a character certificate. The court noted that instead of operating as a Magistrate under a Constitutional democracy, the Executive Magistrate had acted like a “Raja” dispensing justice at whim.