Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: October 2025
SUPREME COURT Criminal Court Cannot Review Or Recall Its Judgment Except To Correct Clerical Errors: Supreme Court Case: State of Rajasthan v Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 984 The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court exercising criminal jurisdiction cannot recall or review its own judicial order under the guise of inherent powers, except...
SUPREME COURT
Criminal Court Cannot Review Or Recall Its Judgment Except To Correct Clerical Errors: Supreme Court
Case: State of Rajasthan v Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 984
The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court exercising criminal jurisdiction cannot recall or review its own judicial order under the guise of inherent powers, except to correct a purely clerical or accidental error. Setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's direction transferring investigation to the CBI in a mining-related dispute, the Court held that the recall of an earlier order by invoking Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) was beyond jurisdiction.
"Law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a criminal Court has no power to recall or review its own judgment. The only permissible action is to correct or rectify clerical errors by virtue of Section 403 BNSS [Section 362 CrPC]," the Court observed.
Case Title: MOHAMMED RASAL.C & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR., SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025
Although the law confers concurrent jurisdiction both on the Sessions Court and the High Court to hear anticipatory bail applications, ordinarily the Sessions Court must be approached first, opined the amici curiae appointed by the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthara and Advocate G Arudhra Rao, the amici appointed by the Court in this issue, suggested that High Courts can be approached directly for anticipatory bail only in exceptional circumstances. They recommended that while both High Courts and Sessions Courts enjoy concurrent powers to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC (now Section 482 of the BNSS), the Sessions Courts should be treated as the primary forum for such applications.
BCCI Supports Criminalization Of Match-Fixing; Seeks Intervention In Case Before Supreme Court
Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. Versus ABRAR KAZI AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 9408-9411/2022
In a matter flagging the consequences of betting and match-fixing, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has come out in support of constitution of match-fixing as a criminal offense.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was informed of the BCCI's stance today by Advocate Shivam Singh, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter.
Singh apprised the Court that BCCI has filed an intervention application supporting criminalization of match-fixing. This application states that match-fixing constitutes an offense under the IPC (replaced by BNS), inasmuch as an accused can be charged with "cheating".
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case title - Sajid Chaudhary vs. State of U.P.
The Allahabad High Court has observed that merely posting a message showing support for another country may create anger or disharmony among citizens of India and may also be punishable under Section 196 BNS (promoting enmity), but it will not attract the stringent provisions of Section 152 BNS (Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India).
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai made the observation while granting bail to one Sajid Chaudhary who has been accused of forwarding a Facebook post stating 'Pakistan Zindabad'.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) recently stayed the arrest of a man accused of sharing a morphed photograph of former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav with a woman alleged to have links with Pakistan and is currently facing an espionage case.
A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh passed the interim order while hearing a plea file by accused-Arun Kumar seeking quashing of the FIR as well as protection from arrest.
The FIR in question was registered in August this year under Sections 147, 196, 197, 353 of the BNS, Section 67 IT Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Case title - Nitish Agrawal Alias Sona Pandey vs. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court recently granted interim protection against coercive processes to a man accused of allegedly threatening Aazad Samaj Party MP Chandrashekhar Azad 'Ravan' in a WhatsApp group message.
A bench Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra granted relief to one Nitish Agrawal Alias Sona Pandey who is facing a cognizance and summoning order in connection with an FIR lodged under Section 351(2) BNS (Criminal Intimidation).
The Allahabad High Court has mandated that in all petitions where provisions or references of the newly promulgated criminal laws [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)] are mentioned, the corresponding provisions of the repealed Acts [(Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Indian Evidence Act (IEA)] must also be added alongside.
A bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh directed the registry to adhere to this direction as it noted that in the applications, petitions, appeals and revisions where provisions of new criminal laws are cited, the non-mentioning of the repealed laws is causing 'tremendous inconvenience' to the HC as well as to the advocates appearing in such matters.
The Court added that advocates themselves have repeatedly suggested that mentioning the corresponding provisions of the old Acts would "facilitate the earliest adjudication of the matters".
Case title - Afaq Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others
The Allahabad High Court has observed that circulating a WhatsApp message to multiple persons alleging that people of a particular religious community were being targeted would prima facie amount to offence of promoting feeling of enmity, hatred & ill will between religious communities under Section 353 (2) BNS.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava made this observation while refusing to quash an FIR lodged against petitioner (Afaq Ahmad) who had allegedly forwarded an inflammatory message to several individuals on WhatsApp.
The Uttar Pradesh Government last week informed the Allahabad High Court that the investigation into an FIR arising out of an alleged social-media post over Pahalgam Terror Attack by an assistant professor of Lucknow University, Dr Madri Kakoti (aka Dr Medusa) has concluded and a charge-sheet will be filed shortly.
Counsel for the State told the Court that several sections earlier included in the FIR, including Section 152 BNS [Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India], have been dropped and the charge-sheet now carries only Sections 352 [Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace] and 302 [Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person] of BNS.
In view of these submissions, the anticipatory-bail petition of Dr. Kakoti was disposed of in terms of the order passed in June this year granting interim anticipatorybail to her.
In a significant sweeping order aimed at ending rampant encroachments over ponds, grazing lands and other public utility properties, the Allahabad High Court has directed a crackdown across Uttar Pradesh, holding that inaction by Pradhans, Lekhpals and revenue officers in reporting or removing encroachments over Gram Sabha land amounts to criminal breach of trust.
In its 24-page order, a bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri not only directed removal of encroachments over public land or land reserved for public utility purposes across the state within 90 days but also ordered departmental and criminal proceedings against officials who fail to act as per the law.
Case title - Javed vs. State of U.P.
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a Meerut resident, Javed, accused of posting on WhatsApp a video allegedly showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Prime Minister of Pakistan talking to each other and urging to "exchange poisonous words" and "engage in war" so that the people of both countries remain "mum for 5 years".
The purported video also carried an audio suggesting that the leaders were talking among themselves that public of both nations were not happy with them and wanted to remove them from their posts.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while considering the allegations in the FIR and the submissions of both sides, observed that the video uploaded on the applicant's WhatsApp status, prima facie, did not attract the ingredients of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India).
Case title - Afaq Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others
The Allahabad High Court has observed that even a WhatsApp message not explicitly referring to religion may, through its 'unsaid' words and 'subtle' message, promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between communities.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava observed thus while refusing to quash an FIR lodged against petitioner (Afaq Ahmad) who had allegedly forwarded an inflammatory message to several individuals on WhatsApp.
Case title - Asha vs. State of U.P. and connected matters
In a significant verdict, the Allahabad High Court recently held that conceptualizing defence strategy, gathering and adducing defence evidence and effectively conducting the defence case can constitute valid grounds for granting bail, but only at an appropriate stage of the trial.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot, while deciding a batch of 18 (second) bail applications, ruled that the right to prepare and conduct an effective defence is an essential component of a fair trial and therefore flows directly from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The judge clarified that while such bail cannot be claimed as a matter of course, it can be considered once the prosecution evidence is concluded or nearing closure, particularly when proceedings under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) are about to commence and the accused needs liberty to prepare and present defence evidence.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Title: Ranganth Tulshiram Galande & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2025]
The Bombay High Court has held that extending judicial remand beyond the statutory period of 60 days under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused and without passing a reasoned order, is contrary to law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh was hearing a petition filed by two persons accused of offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The petitioners sought default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS after the Investigating Officer failed to file a charge sheet within the prescribed 60 days.
The Court held that Section 187(3) of BNSS is mandatory in nature, and any slightest departure from the statutory mandate has the impact of impairing the constitutional right of liberty of an individual, thereby creating an indefeasible right of the petitioners to claim default bail.
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Case Title: In the matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others
The Chhattisgarh High Court has expressed dissatisfaction towards the steps taken by the State officials to curb hooliganism on the roads, which is caused primarily by reckless drivers performing and recording stunts, and others celebrating birthdays on the roads.
The Court, on October 13, had directed the Chief Secretary of State to file personal affidavit regarding two incidents reported in a Hindi daily—one, where the police was reported to have taken action against dangerous stunts being performed on Barsoor bridge, and the other concerning the wife of a close associate of the Health Minister, who was seen cutting her birthday cake on a car bonnet with fireworks being set off on the public road.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Filing Of Final Report No Bar To Granting Anticipatory Bail: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Arif Ali Khan v. Union Territory through Police Station Safa Kadal
In a significant order clarifying the scope of anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023), the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that the filing of a final report (challan) before the competent court does not bar the grant of absolute anticipatory bail.
A bench of Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani observed that compelling an accused to seek regular bail after filing of the charge sheet would defeat the very object of pre-arrest protection guaranteed under Section 482 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 438 of the CrPC (now repealed).
The order was passed by Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani in an application filed by Arif Ali Khan, who had sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 39/2025, registered at Police Station Safa Kadal, Srinagar, for offences under Sections 308(4), 329(5), 351(2), and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Case Title: Harish Kumar Pathak v. The State of Jharkhand
The Jharkhand High Court has explained that Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)— which provides for anticipatory bail, is limited in scope, as opposed to Section 483, which provides for regular bail and is unlimited in scope, in as much as Section 482 does not envisage a revival of “reasons to believe” or apprehension of arrest once an earlier application of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
In this regard, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi stated,
“Upon making a close survey of the section 482 of the BNSS, there could be no slim doubt that the words and languages employed in the Section do not even remotely foreshadow that application for anticipatory bail, could be harvested as there could be no revival of “reasons to believe” of apprehension of arrest in the subsequent application when the earlier application has suffered rejection.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Somasundaram v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 641
The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order of a Magistrate Court, which had framed the charges in printed format with the name and other details of the accused inserted in writing.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that the framing of charges ought to have been done in writing, in accordance with Sections 263(1) and 269(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/ Sections 240(1) and 246(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court perused the order of charges and noted that the Magistrate had used the printed form in the Cr.P.C. and added details in writing.
Case Title: Rameshan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 670
The Kerala High Court has held that an accused person exempted from personal appearance may answer questions under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). either through a written statement or via video linkage.
Justice C S Dias, delivered the judgment and set aside a trial court order that had rejected the accused's plea to allow his counsel to respond on his behalf during the Section 351 examination.
The Court examined Section 351(5) BNSS, which explicitly allows a court to treat a written statement filed by the accused as sufficient compliance with the requirement of personal questioning. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka [(2000) 8 SCC 740] and Keya Mukherjee v. Magma Leasing Ltd. [(2008) 8 SCC 447], which laid down the principles for dispensing with physical presence during questioning under Section 313 CrPC in cases of genuine hardship.
Executive Magistrates Cannot Invoke S.130 BNSS In Purely Private Disputes: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M V Nithamol v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 672
The Kerala High Court has held that Executive Magistrates cannot invoke Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in matters arising from purely private disputes, such as allegations of cheating or breach of trust, unless there is a demonstrable threat to public peace or tranquillity.
Justice V G Arun delivered the judgment in a petition filed challenging the order and summons issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha under Sections 126 (Security for keeping peace in other cases), 130(Order to be made), and 132 (Summons or warrant in case of person not so present) of the BNSS.
Case Title: Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 674
The Kerala High Court recently held that the period during which an accused is released on interim bail cannot be included while calculating period of detention for the purpose of granting statutory bail.
Justice K. Babu observed that only the actual period of detention undergone can be considered, adding together continuous or broken periods of custody.
The petitioner was booked for offences under Sections 22(c), 8(c) and 27(a) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He approached the High Court seeking statutory bail by invoking Section 187 BNSS read with Section 36A(4) NDPS Act.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Gautam Navlakha v. NIA and the Kerala High Court decision in Sabu v. CBI [2020 (3) KLT 710] to decide whether broken period of detention can be computed together to decide whether statutory bail can be granted. It also looked into Section 187(3) of the BNSS (corresponding Section 167 CrPC).
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: Venkateshwaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 339
The Madras High Court recently observed that in offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, it was not necessary to involve the victims of their parents. The court, however, added that impleading the victim, their family or the de facto complainant was essential in case of regular bail applications and for suspension of sentence.
Justice K Murali Shankar clarified that the victims in POCSO cases should not be directly involved in the proceedings, and any notice that should be served to them must be through the address provided by the State Counsel.
The court was dealing with three criminal appeals arising out of convictions and sentences imposed by special courts dealing with POCSO cases. In all three criminal appeals, the appellants had also filed applications for suspension of sentence under Section 430(2) of the BNSS.
Case Title: Ramasamy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court was recently surprised to note that the summons in a criminal case was served 12 years after the case was taken on file.
Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that the delay was attributable to both the police and the court registry. The court said that while the police failed to cause service of summons in time, the Judicial Magistrate also failed to verify whether the summons was issued, and did not call for an explanation for non-service.
Highlighting the provisions under Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order No. 715, Rule 29(11) of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Section 67 of the BNSS, the court held that the three provisions, together, form a complete procedural safeguard against delay in service of summons. The court noted that the provisions ensured that the service of summons is not reduced to a meaningless ritual.
Case Title: Federation of Bar Association v. Union of India and Others
Case No: WP 27880 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Thursday questioned whether the constitutional validity of a central legislation can be challenged on the ground that there was no proper deliberation or discussion in the Parliament, at the time of passing the law.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the new criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
PATNA HIGH COURT
Case title: Laxmi Devi v/s The State of Bihar and others
The Patna High Court has held that a complainant challenging an order summoning accused is an interlocutory order and a revision petition challenging such an order is barred under Section 438(2) BNSS.
For context Section 438(2) states that the powers of revision conferred by Section 438(1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The high court said such an interlocutory order does not amount to a final order with respect to the complainant.
The court however said that such a summoning order with respect to the accused amounts to an intermediate order, which he can challenge in a revision plea and if it is set aside by the high court the whole proceeding before the lower court would get terminated.
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Title: XXXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 414
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to accused mother-in-law of the deceased in an abetment to suicide case, observing that a woman's unnatural death shortly after marriage cannot be taken lightly. The deceased woman had been married in January 2025, and her sudden death within months raised serious concerns that warranted a thorough investigation, the Court noted.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil took serious noted of the fact that "the present case revolves around the unfortunate occurrence of an unnatural death of a young woman who had been married on 24.01.2025 and is alleged to have committed suicide under distressing circumstances. Such a factual matrix cannot be viewed in isolation, as the law itself attaches a presumption of law to unnatural deaths of this nature."
The bench further pointed that under Section 117 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA, 2023), when a woman dies an unnatural death within a short span after her marriage, particularly where allegations of cruelty or harassment by her husband or in-laws exist, a presumption arises against those accused of such conduct, shifting the initial burden of explanation upon them.