Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: August 2025
SUPREME COURT 'Colonial Sedition Law Brought Back': Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Constitutionality Of Section 152 BNS Case Details: S.G. VOMBATKERE Versus UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 720/2025 The Supreme Court today (August 8) agreed to consider the plea challenging the constitutional validity of S.152 BNS. The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV...
SUPREME COURT
Case Details: S.G. VOMBATKERE Versus UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 720/2025
The Supreme Court today (August 8) agreed to consider the plea challenging the constitutional validity of S.152 BNS.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria issued notice in the petition and tagged it with a pending matter in which the same provision is under challenge.
The present petition states that the S.152 BNS virtually brings back the colonial provision on sedition law and contains vague language which may leave room for arbitrary discretion.
"In effect, reintroduces the colonial sedition law previously codified as Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under a new nomenclature. Though the language is altered, its substantive content—criminalising vague and broad categories of speech and expression such as “subversive activity,” “encouragement of separatist feelings,” and acts “endangering unity or integrity of India”—remains the same or is even more expansive."
Case Title: FOUNDATION FOR INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 316/2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 12) granted interim relief to the members of the Foundation running the online news outlet 'The Wire' and its Founding Editor Siddharth Varadarajan by protecting them from coercive action in an FIR registered by the Assam Police under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The FIR was registered by the Morigaon Police on July 11 with respect to the article “IAF Lost Fighter Jets to Pak Because of Political Leadership's Constraints': Indian Defence Attache" published by The Wire in relation to the Operation Sindoor.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by the Foundation for Independent Journalism (the trust owning The Wire) and Varadarajan, challenging the constitutionality of Section 152 BNS, which the petitioners contended was a repackaged version of the colonial sedition law. The bench issued notice to the Union Government on the writ petition and tagged it with another petition which also questioned the validity of the provision.
Case: Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP (Crl) 12055/2025
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition which raises an important legal question whether Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 will apply when cognizance is taken after July 1, 2024, of complaints filed before July 1, 2024.
The BNSS came into effect on July 1, 2024. As per the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard before cognizance is taken of a complaint. Such a provision did not exist in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which the BNSS replaced.
The present issue arose with respect to a prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate. While the complaint was filed on June 26, 2024, the Special Court took cognizance on July 2, 2024. The accused challenged the cognizance order, contending that it was illegal for not complying with Section 223 BNSS.
Case Title: FOUNDATION FOR INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 316/2025
The Supreme Court today granted interim protection from arrest to online news portal-The Wire's Founding Editor Siddharth Varadarajan and Consulting Editor-Karan Thapar in an FIR registered by Assam police under Section 152 of the BNS.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after taking up the matter following a mentioning by Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan. She submitted that after the Supreme Court granted interim protection to the petitioners in one FIR of the Assam Police, a summons was issued to them in another FIR.
The Court ordered :
"Post the matter on 15 September. Meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against petitioner No.2 (Varadarajan) and members of petitioner-Foundation, including the Consulting Editor (Karan Thapar), pursuant to FIR registered u/s 152 BNS subject to their joining and cooperating with investigation."
Case Title: ABHISAR SHARMA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 338/2025
The Supreme Court today refused to entertain journalist and YouTuber Abhisar Sharma's challenge to an FIR registered by Assam police under Section 152 of BNS over his video criticising the state government for 'communal politics' and questioning its allotment of 3000 bighas of land to a private entity.
The Court, however, granted him interim protection for 4 weeks in order to approach the Gauhati High Court for appropriate relief. It also issued notice on Sharma's challenge to the vires of Section 152 of BNS and tagged the matter with a similar case.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Sharma), who claimed that S.152 BNS has become an "omnibus" provision which is being invoked just against anybody.
Supreme Court Asks Petitioner Challenging J&K Govt's Ban On 25 Books To Approach High Court
Case Title: SHAKIR SHABIR Versus UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 794/2025
The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging Jammu and Kashmir government's notification which declared 25 books, including some written by prominent figures like A.G. Noorani and Arundhati Roy, as 'forfeited' over their alleged propensity to excite secessionism and endanger sovereignty of India.
The Court however granted liberty to the petitioner to move the J&K&L High Court for appropriate relief. It requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to list the matter before a 3-judge bench (presided over by the CJ) and decide the same at the earliest.
The petition, moved by Kashmir-based Advocate Shakir Shabir, also challenged Section 98 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which deals with the power of a state government to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search-warrants for same. It was claimed that the provision is ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: FEDERATION OF BAR ASSOCIATIONS OF TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., T.P.(Crl.) No. 690-692/2025
The Supreme Court today requested the Madras High Court to give an expeditious hearing to writ petitions pending before it on the question of constitutional validity of 3 new criminal laws viz. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).
"Having regard to the importance of the issue and the fact that writ petitions are awaiting effective hearing, we request Chief Justice of the High Court to place all matters before a Division Bench, with further request for early/out-of-turn hearing in the matters", it ordered.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi was dealing with a petition filed by a Federation of Bar Associations of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, seeking transfer of the cases from the High Court to the Supreme Court.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case title - Asheesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 293
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 293
In a recent order, the Allahabad High Court clarified the scope of anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) as it held that in a complaint case involving accusation of a non-bailable offence, anticipatory bail plea will not be maintainable upon the mere issuance of a summons, as in such a case, there is no apprehension of arrest by the police without warrant.
Now, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1980, the Court reiterated that 'mere fear' is not 'reason to believe' and that belief must be 'founded on reasonable ground' and 'must be capable of being examined by the Court objectively'.
Notably, the Court also clarified that 'arrest' and 'custody' are two different and distinct things. It noted that the term 'arrest' used in Section 482 BNSS cannot be equated with the term 'custody', which the police take after the arrest or the court can take on surrendering or producing an accused before it.
Case title - Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 294
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 294
The Allahabad High Court last week clarified that a Magistrate cannot issue a notice to a prospective accused under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), without first recording the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, if any.
With this, a bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar quashed a notice issued to the accused (applicant-Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi) in violation of this procedure by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow.
The Court found that the impugned notice had been issued before any sworn statement of the complainant or witnesses was recorded, contrary to the procedural mandate under Section 223 BNSS.
Case title - Bacchi Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 303
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 303
The Allahabad High Court has issued a comprehensive set of directions for the trial courts across Uttar Pradesh to ensure uniform trial court practice, to give effect to the constitutional guarantees under Article 21 and to implement binding Supreme Court directions in this regard.
The Court also added that at the stage of proceedings under Sections 91, 190, 227 and 232 BNSS (corresponding to Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 CrPC), the trial court, whether presided over by a District Judge, Additional District and Sessions Judge, or Magistrate, shall inform the accused of his right to furnish a personal bond at the first instance, and may require surety.
Subsequently, if necessary, immediately after the accused appears in response to summons, the court shall comply with Sections 230 and 231 BNSS, commit the case to the Court of Session if exclusively triable by it, and proceed to the next trial stage without unnecessary delay, the Court added.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 4153 of 2025)
In an order granting relief to HDFC Bank's Managing Director, Sashidhar Jagdishan, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate issuing notice to him in a private complaint lodged against him at the behest of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust.
Single-judge Justice Shriram Modak noted that the Magistrate at Girgaon had issued a notice to the Jagdishan, a proposed accused, without verifying the complaint and the witnesses in the case and even before taking cognisance of the said complaint.
The judge, refused to accept Lilavati's contention, as advanced by senior advocate Aabad Ponda that the proviso to section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) justifies the Magistrate in issuing notice to the proposed accused as it should grant a right of audience to the said accused, before taking cognisance of the complaint.
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Case Number: CRA No. 1229 of 2024
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
The Chhattisgarh High Court has used grounds of insanity to overturn a conviction of a 25 year old man (appellant) who murdered his father and grandmother after stating “I am Hanumanji, Bajrang Bali, Durga.”
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 (punishment for murder) and Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 100 (two counts).
Noting that there was absence of motive and that the act was not driven by “rational intent”, but by a “disturbed mental condition”, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed,
“The sudden, unprovoked and brutal nature of the attack on close family members, coupled with the statements made by the appellant like “I am Hanumanji, Bajrang Bali, Durga,” and his erratic behavior, align with classic signs of a psychotic episode typically found in cases of mental disorder involving delusions or hallucinations. Thus, the provisions of 22 of the BNS (Section 84 IPC) will come to the rescue of the appellant, as he was not knowing that what he was doing was wrong or the same is contrary to law. In order to ascertain the same, the imperative circumstances and the behavior preceding, attending and following the crime are the main consideration. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 of the IPC is not sustainable.”
DELHI HIGH COURT
Title: Lakshay Vij v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 974
The Delhi High Court has observed that special court cannot take cognizance of the complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) without giving opportunity of hearing to the accused.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside a special judge order dismissing the application of an accused in a PMLA case seeking a pre cognizance hearing in the money laundering case in terms of proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court said that the impugned order failed to appreciate the applicability of Section 223 of the BNSS to a prosecution complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The judge relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. ED wherein it was held that since the PMLA complaint was filed after 1 July 2024, Section 223 BNSS, shall apply, mandating an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance.
Case title: Yogesh Singh v. State NCT of Delhi
Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 3183/2020
The Delhi High Court has held that inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 are available to it even if the bail plea preferred before it stands disposed of.
Justice Arun Monga however clarified that the power can be exercised only to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice but, it cannot be invoked to reopen/ rehear the bail plea.
The bench observed,
“Ordinary rule is Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction in a disposed-of matter unless a statutory provision allows review/recall (which a criminal court clearly lacks). However, under Section 528, the High Court retains inherent powers to pass orders to prevent abuse of the process of Court or secure justice, even in circumstances not covered by the express provisions of the BNSS. This includes situations where- continuing the criminal proceedings in a particular matter would frustrate the administration of justice and/or there is an attempt to misuse the Court's process through technicalities. Clearly, this power cannot be used to rehear a matter or reopen a concluded adjudication under the guise of inherent jurisdiction.”
Title: YASH MISHRA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 193(9) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, saying that the provision does not act as a camouflage to an accused's right to default bail.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed a PIL filed by lawyer Yash Mishra which challenged the validity of Section 193(9) read with Section 187(3) of BNSS.
Analysing the provision and the proviso, the Bench observed that the power to conduct further investigation is "not unfettered and that adequate safeguards" are there on the arbitrary use of such a power as further investigation during trial can be conducted only with the permission of the Court.
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Name: Krishan Kumar Kasana V/s State of H.P. & another
Case No.: Cr. MP(M) No. 1257 of 2025
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to an industrialist, who was accused of allegedly taking photographs of the wife of a regional officer of the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board in an attempt to intimidate him.
The Court reiterated that Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita deals with stalking and punishes a person who follows a woman and contacts her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or other form of electronic communication.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “In the present case, the allegations in the complaint do not show that the petitioner had followed the informant's wife and contacted her to foster personal interaction. The only allegation is that the petitioner had taken the photographs of the informant's wife, Prima facie, these allegations do not satisfy the definition of stalking,”
Case Name: Suleman V/s State of H.P.
Case No.: Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1647 of 2025
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a street vendor who was accused of sharing an AI-generated image of the Prime Minister with the caption “Pakistan Zindabad” on Facebook.
The Court remarked that merely praising another country without speaking against India does not amount to sedition as it does not encourage rebellion, violence, or separatist activities.
Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated that: “Hailing a country without denouncing the motherland does not constitute an offence of sedition because it does not incite armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage feelings of separatist activities. Therefore, prima facie, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.”
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
The Jharkhand High Court has awarded Rs.20 Lakh as compensation to be paid by BIT Mesra, Polytechnic College, to the parents of a 3rd semester student, who was allegedly subjected to casteist slurs in the name of Harijan/Dalit and multiple violent assaults leading to his death.
Terming the incident as a "brutal assault", Justice Sanjay Prasad came down heavily on the College over their negligent attitude and poor administration, including their failure to maintain required discipline which resulted in the tragic death of the student.
The court also pulled up the college for not building a proper boundary wall, failing to keep operational CCTV cameras, giving false information to parents of the deceased that he had consumed excessive alcohol in order to conceal the incident, and their abject failure to provide proper medical treatment to the deceased in the College Dispensary.
the Jharkhand High Court has directed the Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, to file his personal affidavit regarding the number of cases of custodial deaths and whether the factum of death was brought to the notice of the concerned Magistrates for initiation of enquiry.
Hearing a PIL seeking inquiry into the cases of custodial deaths from 2018, a division bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar directed,
“The Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, is directed to file his personal affidavit with regard to the number of cases of custodial death whether in prison or in judicial custody from the year 2018 onwards and also stating as to whether the factum of death was brought to the notice of the Magistrate so as to make an enquiry under Section 176 (1-A) of Cr.P.C or Section 196(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”
KERALA HIGH COURT
S. 232 BNSS | No Prohibition On Committal Courts To Consider Bail Applications: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Vishnu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
The Kerala High Court has held that there is no prohibition on a committal court to consider the bail application of an accused person as per the second proviso to Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Justice V.G. Arun observed:
"The 2nd proviso casts a duty on the Magistrate to forward the applications filed by the accused or the victim to the Court of Session while committing the case. If the 2nd proviso is taken as a prohibition on the Magistrate's power to consider applications, including bail applications at the committal stage, that will deprive the accused of his right to seek bail till the case is committed to the Sessions Court...As per sub-clause (a) of Section 232, the Magistrate's power to remand the accused to custody until commitment, is subject to the provisions relating to bail. If the proviso is interpreted as making it obligatory for the Magistrate to forward the bail applications also to the Sessions Court, that would render the power conferred under sub-clause (a) of Section 232 nugatory."
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sangram Keshari Routray v. Hexagon Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 101
While adjudicating a case relating to cheque bounce, the Orissa High Court has reiterated that a Magistrate, who does not have power to take cognizance for an offence for the want of territorial jurisdiction, must endorse and return the complaint for presentation before the jurisdictional Court.
Elucidating the requirement under Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra also observed –
“Section 224 of the BNSS mandates, if a complaint is made to a Magistrate, who is not competent to take cognizance of an offence, he shall, if the complaint is in writing, return it for prosecution before the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect.”
Case Title: Jati @ Susanta Rout & Anr. v. State of Odisha
Case No: BLAPL Nos. 5527 & 6993 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has reiterated that failure on the part of police/investigation agency to produce an accused before Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest shall vitiate the arrest itself, as it violates the safeguards enshrined under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
While enlarging two accused persons on bail, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy also held that such omission enures to the benefit of the accused, who must be released forthwith on bail. In the words of the Court –
“For the purpose of criminal case, the Petitioners being not produced beyond 24 hours, their detention can be considered illegal for violation of provision of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India r/w Sec. 58 of BNSS and, therefore, the arrest of the Petitioners are violative of the Constitutional mandate.”
PATNA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Navneet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar
Case No: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38822 of 2025
The Patna High Court has held that Sessions Courts cannot ask accused seeking anticipatory bail to approach the police for relief under Section 41A of the CrPC/Section 35 BNSS.
In doing so the court emphasized that the competent courts cannot shut their doors and refer the petitioners to go to other fora for protection of their liberty.
Section 41A of CrPC pertains to Notice of appearance before police officer. It states that a police officer shall in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required, issue a notice to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognisable offence, to appear.
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Title: Sikander Singh v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 318
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita 2023, which grants the accused right to be heard before cognizance is taken in complaint cases, can apply even to cases instituted prior to July 1, 2024—the date when the BNSS came into force.
Section 223 BNSS is pari materia to Section 200 of the erstwhile CrPC except the first proviso to the former which has created a new procedure for taking cognizance only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused.
Citing the 'rule of beneficial construction' of a statute, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said,
"Issuing process of a criminal offence has serious repercussions for the accused, and that is the reason the Legislature deemed it appropriate to provide prior hearing to the person sought to be summoned. The right of hearing is one of the most cherished rights in the criminal jurisprudence, and is embedded in the Principles of Natural Justice permeating to the Constitutional scheme of things, especially Articles 14 and 21 guaranteeing the right to fair trial. Therefore, there is no reason why the benefit of hearing should not be afforded to the accused after coming into force of the BNSS, even if complaint against him has been technically filed before coming into force of the BNSS on 01.07.2024."
Title: ASI Dilbag Singh v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted pre-arrest bail to the personal security officer (PSO) of a sitting High Court judge, who allegedly attempted to open fire on a court officer during a heated altercation.
The Chief Court Officer, Dalvinder Singh, filed a complaint stating that during a heated argument, ASI Dilbagh Singh pulled out his gun to open fire, but the bullet was not shot as a result of a failed attempt.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat said, "keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has tendered an unconditional apology to the complainant in Court itself, this Court has taken a lenient view of the matter and the petition is allowed."
Counsel for the petitioner contended that no gun shot was fired and the complainant had allegedly suffered simple injuries. No injury suffered by the complainant/injured has been declared to be dangerous to life and the offence under Section 109 (1) of BNS has been wrongly invoked by the police.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Title: Ajay Shivpuri v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court appointed a Court Commissioner in a plea challenging State government's order permitting proposed installation of a dairy booth outside a private residence in Jaipur, where it was alleged that dairies are running a wholesale kirana shops or small restaurants
Considering the matter to be having “writ large effect”, the high court directed the Court Commissioner to inspect Bapu Nagar, Gandhi Nagar and other areas in Jaipur as mentioned in the plea and file a report in 7 days.
Justice Sameer Jain opined that the matter was concerned with the applicability of Section 152, BNSS, as it pertained to violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was the case of the petitioner that without taking NOC from any other concerned department like electricity, police, PWD etc, the dairy booth had been permitted to be installed in front of his private residence. Section 152, BNSS, provides for procedure for removal of public nuisance.
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Case title - Harish Kumar Prajapati vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Dehradun and connected matters
In a significant order, the Uttarakhand High Court recently referred to a larger Bench the question as to whether the provisions of Section 482 BNSS would prevail over the State amendment to Section 438 CrPC, which contains restrictions on grant of relief in serious offences, particularly in light of the more liberal approach adopted in the BNSS with respect to anticipatory bail.
A bench of Justice Alok Kumar Verma framed the following issue while hearing a batch of anticipatory bail pleas filed u/s 482 BNSS by certain accused apprehending arrest in connection with cases registered both under the IPC, POCSO Act, NDPS Act, etc:
"Whether the provision of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 would prevail over the Uttarakhand State Amendment under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and since the provisions of the Sanhita, 2023 are beneficial to the accused, can it be applied with respect to earlier cases (regardless of when the case of the accused originated)?"