Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest – March 2025
Supreme Court:Supreme Court Mandates Preliminary Inquiry Before FIR On Certain Offences Related To Speech & ExpressionsCase Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of GujaratCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362With the aim of curbing frivolous FIRs against speeches, writings and artistic expressions, the Supreme Court on Friday mandated that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted before lodging...
Supreme Court:
Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362
With the aim of curbing frivolous FIRs against speeches, writings and artistic expressions, the Supreme Court on Friday mandated that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted before lodging the FIR, if the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment between three to seven years.
The Court held so after referring to Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Section 173(3) provides that for offences punishable with imprisonment between three to seven years, the police may conduct a preliminary enquiry within 14 days to establish a prima facie case, with prior approval from a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
Case Title: REKHA SHARAD USHIR versus SAPTASHRUNGI MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTA LTD.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 355
The Supreme Court on quashed a complaint filed for the offence of cheque dishonour under the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) after noting that the complainant suppressed material facts and abused the judicial process by withholding loan documents.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Oka emphasized that the law cannot be set into motion by issuing a process on a complaint without satisfying that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The Court underscored the Magistrate's duty to apply its mind before setting criminal law into motion.
Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362
The Supreme Court on held that for an offence under section 196 (promoting enmity between groups) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleged on the basis of written or spoken words, the standard to judge effect of the words should be that of a reasonable, firm, individual rather than an insecure person.
High Courts:
Allahabad High Court:
Case title: Priyanka Bharti vs. State
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 78
Observing that act of tearing pages of 'Manusmriti' in a live TV debate prima facie amounts to a cognizable offence, the Allahabad High Court denied relief to Rashtriya Janata Dal Spokeperson and Jawaharlal Nehru University Ph.D. student Priyanka Bharti by refusing to quash an FIR lodged against her.
Bharti has been charged under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly tearing a few pages of Manusmriti during a live debate organized by the news channels India TV and TV9 Bharatvarsh, where she was participating as a spokesperson for the RJD.
Andhra Pradesh High Court:
Case Name: Motakatla Jhansi Vani Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the provisions of Section 47(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are mandatory and peremptory, and a violation of this provision can only result in a declaration that the arrest and subsequent detention are invalid.
Delhi High Court:
Title: SUDESH CHHIKARA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 335
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot transfer a case from one Court or another either suo moto or upon an application being moved to that effect.
“…under Section 410 Cr.PC. and Section 450 BNSS the power conferred upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate is only administrative in nature. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot “transfer” a case from one Court or another upon an application being moved or suo moto,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held.
Title: VIJAY KUMAR @ CHAMPION v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 317
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking quashing of an FIR cannot serve as a substitute for availing remedies specifically provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for securing personal liberty.
Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while dismissing a plea moved by an accused in an extortion case seeking to restrain the Delhi Police from effecting his arrest.
Gauhati High Court:
Case Title: Sakib Choudhury v. The State of Assam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 15
The Gauhati High Court recently directed the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, Assam, to ensure that when exercising the power to arrest without a warrant, the police or any other authority issues a notice to the arrestee under Section 47 of BNSS or any other relevant provision of a special law, stating the grounds of arrest.
Karnataka High Court:
Case Title: Avinash AND State of Karnataka
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has said that trial courts are required to be more cautious while permitting the Investigation Officer to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, which pertains to Organised crime.
Kerala High Court:
Case Title: A.K Samsuddin & Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
The Kerala High Court has held that Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam (BSA) grant discretion in the manner for summoning and examining witnesses, allowing the Trial Court to determine whether to proceed with the PMLA trial or to keep it in abeyance until the predicate offence trial is concluded.
A division bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that delaying the PMLA trial until the conclusion of the trial in the predicate offence could result in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) losing key witnesses.
Case Title: Ajikumar K K v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court orally reprimanded a Sub-Inspector of Police for issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the lawyer of the accused, summoning him for investigation involving the latter's clients.
Section 35(3) states that the police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 35(1), issue a notice directing 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 cognizable offence, to appear before the officer or at a place specified in the notice.
Case Title: Fakrudeen K. V. @ Fakrudheen Panthavoor v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
The Kerala High Court has expressed concerns over the absence of legal provisions to effectively combat cyberbullying and online harassment and remarked that cyberbullying in the form of abusive remarks or derogatory content towards others is inadequately being addressed through the current legal framework.
Noting that even the recently enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 has no direct provisions on cyberbullying, Justice C. S. Sudha observed that online harassment which does not have sexual overtones also needs to be addressed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court:
Case Title: Amitabh Gupta Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
While disposing of Public Interest Litigation petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State to ensure case diary and charge sheet filed under Section 193 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) contains all the evidence which is both inculpatory as well as exculpatory in nature. Section 193 of BNSS relates rto Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
Orissa High Court:
Case Title: Priyadarshini Amrita Panda v. Biswajit Pati
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 35
The Orissa High Court has held that it is not mandatory on the part of Court to hold a preliminary inquiry as provided under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into commission of offences referred to in Section 215, BNSS in order to make or reject to make complaint.
Punjab & Haryana High Court:
Title: RAM CHANDER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 137
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has settled that that appeals, applications, trial, inquiry or investigation pending since before the commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (01 July 2024) are permitted to be continued in accordance with the provisions of CrPC.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Harpreet Singh Brar while answering the reference question said, "If the investigations are subjudice in respect of an offence registered under the IPC, thereupons, the relevant procedural law, which is to be applied theretos, but is the former Cr.P.C. In sequel, when there is continuity of operation of the Cr.P.C., vis-a-vis investigations' which become launched in respect of an offence embodied in the former IPC. Therefore, the further sequitur thereof, but is that, the cut off date vis-a-vis the date of coming into force of the respective substantive and procedural laws i.e. 01.07.2024, but naturally assuming no relevance."
Title: Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 118
In a significant development, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that case involving small quantity under the NDPS Act is "Bailable" by operation of BNSS and accused will be entitled for bail without filing bail application.
The case pertains to the alleged recovery of 1 gram of heroin. While setting aside the order rejecting pre-arrest bail the Court said, "when the contravention under the NDPS Act involves 'Small Quantity', the offences are 'Bailable'. When the drug quantity falls in small category, the offence is bailable by operation of BNSS, 2023. Thus, any person accused of such an offence is entitled to bail without filing any bail application, subject to furnishing the requisite bail bonds."