Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest - July 2025

Supreme Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To MP Cartoonist After His Apology For Objectionable Post On Prime Minister

Case Title – Hemant Malviya v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 15) granted interim protection to Indore based cartoonist Hemant Malviya, who has been booked over a cartoon shared on Facebook that allegedly contains derogatory references to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the RSS. The court listed the matter after August 15th for further hearing.

The cartoon, published on January 6, 2021, was described in the petition as a satirical comment on a public figure's statement that some vaccines were “safe like water” despite lack of rigorous clinical testing. The image, according to the petition, showed a common man being vaccinated by a public representative and had been in circulation on social media for over four years.

The plea says that an unknown person reposted the cartoon in May 2025 with added commentary, and Malviya shared it only to show that his work was publicly available.

Following this, an FIR was registered on May 21, 2025, under Sections 196, 299, 302, 352, and 353(2) of the BNSS and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complaint, filed by a person claiming to be a member of the RSS and Hindu community, alleged that the cartoon insulted the RSS, incited violence, and hurt religious sentiments.

Police Summons Under Section 35 BNSS Can't Be Served Electronically: Supreme Court Reiterates

Case: Satinder Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation | IA NO. 63691 OF 2025 in SLP(Crl). 5191 OF 2021

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the summons issued by the police/investigating agency to an accused for appearance as per Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) cannot be served electronically.

The Court rejected an application filed by the State of Haryana to modify its earlier direction issued in January 2025 that summons for appearance under Section 41A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS cannot be served through WhatsApp or other electronic means.

Though the new criminal law BNSS provides for the electronic service of notice, it can be availed only in situations where it is specifically allowed; since electronic service is not specifically mentioned in Section 35, it cannot be resorted to, the Court said.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

BNSS Has Removed CrPC (UP Amendment) Bar On Grant Of Anticipatory Bail In Offences Punishable With Death Or Life Term: Allahabad HC

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that with the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) from July 1, 2024, which repealed the CrPC, the restriction contained under Section 438(6) of the CrPC (as was applicable in the State of UP) on granting anticipatory bail in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment, no longer applies.

In other words, the Court clarified that since Section 482 of the BNSS, which now governs anticipatory bail, does not retain any such prohibition as contained under Section 438 (6) CrPC, there is no bar on granting anticipatory bail in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment.

A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held thus while allowing the second anticipatory bail application filed by one Abdul Hameed, who was summoned to face trial in a 2011 murder case but was not charge-sheeted during the investigation.

With S. 111 Of BNS Covering 'Organised Crime', Hasn't Gangsters Act Become Redundant? Allahabad HC Asks UPGovt

Case title - Vijay Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

The Allahabad High Court has observed that with the coming into force of Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which defines and penalises the offence of 'organised crime', the provisions of the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 appear to have become 'redundant'.

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Avnish Saxena has also called for a response from the UP Government in this regard within 3 weeks.

Cricketer Yash Dayal Moves Allahabad High Court Against FIR Over Sexual Harassment Allegations

Cricketer Yash Dayal, who plays for Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), has moved the Allahabad High Court challenging an FIR lodged against him for allegedly sexually exploiting a woman.

The matter will likely be heard by a division bench next week.

The FIR was registered against 27-year-old Dayal on July 6 at Indirapuram police station in Ghaziabad under section 69 (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.) of BNS.

Merely Supporting Pakistan Sans Referring To Any Incident Or India Doesn't Attract S. 152 BNS: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday observed that merely showing support to Pakistan without referring to any incident or mentioning the name of India will not, prima facie, attract the offence under Section 152 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which penalises acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this observation while granting bail to an 18-year-old boy [Riyaz], booked under Sections 152, 196 BNS for allegedly posting an Instagram story.

It added that for attracting this provision, there must be a purpose by spoken or written words, signs, visible representations, the electronic communication to promote secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities or encourage feelings of separating activities or endangers the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.

ALSO READ: Reasonable Care Must Be Applied Before Invoking Offence Of Endangering Sovereignty, Unity &Integrity Of India: Allahabad HC

Allahabad HC Asks UP Govt If Action Proposed Against Books By Self-Styled Godman Rampal Allegedly Targeting Hindu Deities

Case title - Hindu Front For Justice Thru. Its Distt. CoConvener Shivanshu Dwivedi And 17 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 11 Others

The Allahabad High Court has sought a response from the Uttar Pradesh Government on whether it proposes to take any action on a representation filed before it seeking forfeiture of books, pamphlets, and other literature allegedly published at the instance of self-styled godman Sant Rampal Maharaj, which purportedly contain indecent portrayals of Hindu Gods and Goddesses.

A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the order while hearing a petition filed by the Hindu Front for Justice, a Trust, along with its members and office bearers, 17 in number. The petitioners seek the seizure and forfeiture of the allegedly objectionable publications.

The Court directed the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek instructions from the authorities as to whether any action has been taken on the representation submitted under Section 98 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Maintenance Cases Require Expeditious Disposal As 'Sufferer' Is A Lady In Most Cases; Courts Must Be Sensitive: Allahabad HC

Case title - Anjali Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 254

The Allahabad High Court recently stressed the need for the courts to act with greater sensitivity and urgency in deciding maintenance applications filed under Section 125 CrPC (or Section 144 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), observing that in most of such cases, the 'sufferer' is the wife.

A bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava made these remarks while directing a Family Court in Gautam Budh Nagar to expeditiously decide a maintenance application filed by a woman (named Anjali Singh), which has been pending since 2023.

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

AP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To 3 Booked For Trafficking, Sexual Exploitation Of Women In Guise Of Running Spa

Case Title: SHAIK ASIF and Others v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a successive anticipatory bail plea of three persons accused of operating a brothel under the guise of running a Spa and recruiting women into prostitution.

The three accused were earlier denied anticipatory bail by the High Court on May 8.

The accused had moved anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 143(2) (trafficking of person) and 144(2) BNS and under provisions of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. Section 144(2) states that whoever, knowingly or having reason to believe that a person has been trafficked, engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and also fine.

Freezing Company's Bank Accounts Slowly Makes It A Non-Performing Asset, Detrimental To Employees' Interests: AP High Court

Case Title: BHOLE BADA ORGANIC DAIRYMILK PVT LTD v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ordered the de-freezing of bank accounts of a Roorkee based company accused of supplying adulterated and substandard Cow Ghee worth approximately Rs 2 crore.

Highlighting the detriments of continued freezing of the bank accounts, Justice Harinath N said,

“Continuation of the freeze on the bank account of the petitioner would lead to other legal consequences for the petitioner-company. Admittedly, the petitioner cannot pay its statutory dues including the statutory authority and shall also default in paying salaries of its staff. The net result of freezing of the bank accounts of a going concern would slowly render the company as a non-performing assert. The same is detrimental to the interest of the company and the employees who are dependent on the company. The livelihood of the employees and their dependents on the company salary would also be impacted once the cash flow is disrupted.”

S.230 BNSS | AP High Court Quashes UAPA Charges Against Accused Citing Non-Service Of Witness Statements, Remits Matter Back To Trial Court

Case title: Rela Rajeswari vs. State of AP AND BATCH

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has remitted four criminal appeals– two challenging dismissal of discharge applications and the other two challenging framing of charges –back to the trial court in a UAPA case, after noting that statements of protected witnesses were not supplied to the accused.

A division bench Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice V Sujatha in its order noted that admittedly from July 1, 2024 the BNSS replaced the CrPC.

The court observed that sessions case was numbered as S.C.No.11 of 2023, the BNSS had come into force; but the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.138 and 139 of 2025 filed discharge applications, under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

ED Can Lodge Cases Under PMLA While Relying On Predicate Offences Under BNS, As It Replaced IPC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi vs Union of India (Bail Application 728 of 2025)

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 8) held that 'predicate offences' lodged under the newly introduced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) can be treated as 'scheduled offences' under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), even if its schedule only refers to the repealed Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar while rejecting a bail plea, held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can register cases under the PMLA while relying on the predicate offences lodged under the BNS and the said prosecution can be termed a valid one.

The judge held that if it is argued that the repeal of the IPC has made the references in the Schedule to the PMLA ineffective or invalid, then such a view would result in a serious legal absurdity.

[S.438 BNSS] Sessions Court Cannot Entertain An Issue Outside Scope Of Original Proceedings Under Revisional Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shri. Noberto Paulo Sebastiao Fernandes v. Shri. Pankaj Vithal Tan Volvoikar & Ors. [Criminal Writ Petition No. 40 of 2025]

The Bombay High Court has held that a Sessions Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot entertain applications or pass orders that alter the status quo regarding possession, particularly when the original proceedings pertain to maintenance of public order under Section 164 BNSS.

A single judge bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes was hearing a criminal writ petition challenging the Sessions Court's order permitting the respondents to temporarily enter and use a sealed structure for a religious festival, despite a subsisting order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) restraining them from entering the property and recognising the petitioner's possession.

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

Courts Must Be Cautious In Transfer Pleas Alleging Judicial Bias, Reckless Claims Erode Public Faith: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Chandrashekhar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

The Chhattisgarh High Court has said that transfer of a case– particularly where it is sought by making allegations against a Presiding Officer, is a "serious matter" and the same cannot be allowed merely on a suspicion that a party will not get justice.

It said that the foundation of the system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers and if their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary.

“The allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, if made the basis for transfer of case, before exercising power under Section 447 of BNSS, the Court must be satisfied that the apprehension of bias or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable. The expression of apprehension, must be proved/ substantiated by circumstances and material placed by such applicant before the Court. It cannot be taken as granted that mere allegation would be sufficient to justify transfer.” the Single Judge added.

DELHI HIGH COURT

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL To Abolish Offences Of 'Waging War', 'Unlawful Assembly' From BNS 2023

Title: UPENDRA NATH DALAI v. UNION OF INDIA

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking abolition of offences of waging war against the State and unlawful assembly from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal remarked that it cannot direct the Parliament to abolish the provisions as that will be amounting to legislation, which is not the realm of Courts.

The Court rejected the PIL filed by one Upendra Nath Dalai, seeking abolition of Section 147 (waging war against State), Section 158 (harbouring prisoners), Section 189 (unlawful assembly) and Section 197 (promoting enmity), which fall under Chapter VII and XI of BNS.

Bar On Revision Of Interlocutory Order U/S 438(2) Of BNSS Can't Be Bypassed By Invoking Inherent Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Case title: Ability Dodzi @ Chinazom Ability v. State NCT Of Delhi

The Delhi High Court has held that the bar prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Surakhsha Sanhita 2023 against revision of interlocutory orders cannot be bypassed by invoking the High Court's inherent powers.

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, “What is prohibited by law cannot be done by invoking inherent powers, as that would be allowing backdoor entry to the relief claimed,” and imposed Rs.20,000/- costs on the Petitioner.

The bench was dealing with a petition against trial court order issuing fresh summons to the Investigating Officer in a case registered under NDPS Act and Foreigners Act.

S.223 BNSS | Cognizance Can't Be Taken On Complaint Without Giving Notice To Accused: Delhi High Court

Title: BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT. LTD v. ANIL KUMAR

Comparing the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Delhi High Court has held that cognizance cannot be taken on a complaint before giving notice to the accused under the new law.

“Thus, it may be concluded that Section 223 BNSS has reiterated the procedural framework of Section 200 Cr.P.C. with regard to examination of the Complainant and the witnesses, but has introduced significant departure that after the Complainant/ witnesses as the Court may desire has been recorded, an opportunity of being heard be given to the accused before cognizance is taken,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

'Notice Must Be Issued To Accused Before Conducting Pre-Cognizance Hearing U/S 223 Of BNSS': Calcutta High Court Frames Guidelines

Case: Kaberi Dey & Ors. Vs. Sourav Bhattacharjee

The Calcutta High Court has highlighted the scope of, and framed guidelines for conducting pre-cognisance hearings under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Upon delving into S.223 of the BNSS and it's provisos, the court noted that it is apparent from the impugned order dated 13th September, 2024 that the concerned magistrate took cognizance without hearing the proposed accused persons/petitioners in terms of proviso to section 223 (1) of the BNSS.

Court noted that it was evident that the trial court proceeded to examine the opposite party under section 223 (1) of the BNSS and thereafter issued process to the accused persons.

'When Pre-Cognizance Hearing U/S 223(1) BNSS Is Not Conducted, Further Proceedings Are A Nullity In Law': Calcutta High Court

Case: Tutu Ghosh Vs. Enforcement Directorate

The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order taking cognizance of proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act, upon observing that cognizance had been taken by the special court, without complying with the mandatory requirement of holding a pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held: "In view of the above findings, the impugned order dated February 15, 2025, taking cognizance of the offences made out in the complaints against the petitioners under the PMLA, being patently violative of the first proviso to Section 223(1), BNSS, since no pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, is vitiated in law and a nullity in the eye of law. Accordingly, the said order dated February 15, 2025 passed in ML Case No.12 of 2024 in connection with ECIR/KLZO-I/10/2023 is hereby set aside. Consequentially, the subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance of the said orders are also quashed, in view of the genesis of such proceedings itself being a nullity in the eye of law."

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

'Maybe In Bad Taste, But Do Not Incite Violence': HP HC Grants Bail To Man Charged U/S152 BNS For Sharing Videos Allegedly Insulting PM, Army

Case Name: Farooq Ahmad v/s State of Himachal Pradesh

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to Farooq Ahmad, who was arrested for allegedly sharing videos on Facebook that contained insulting comments about the Prime Minister of India and the Indian Army.

The Court held that mere sharing of such videos, in the absence of any incitement to violence or public disorder, does not prima facie attract the offences of sedition or promoting enmity.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The video recording of the Facebook posts was played in the Court. They may be in bad taste, but they do not tend to incite any person to violence or create disturbance in public peace. Hence, prima facie, the applicability of Sections 152 and 196 of BNS is highly doubtful.”

JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT

Mere Involvement In 'Grave Economic Offence' Not Organised Crime U/S 111 Of BNS: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Aamir Bashir Magray Vs UT Of J&K

Observing that the invocation of organised crime provisions under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) requires strict compliance with the statutory prerequisites, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that mere involvement in a grave economic offence is not sufficient to attract the rigours of Section 111 BNS.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar has held that to bring an accused within the ambit of organised crime, it must be shown that the person has indulged in continuing unlawful activity, has been charge-sheeted more than once within the preceding ten years, and that cognisance has been taken by a competent court.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

S.483(3) BNSS | High Court Can't Cancel Bail Granted By Sessions Court In Absence Of Breach Of Conditions: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Devibai AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 224

The Karnataka High court has said that in absence of any violation of bail conditions, the order of Sessions Court granting bail to an accused cannot be sought to be cancelled before the High Court by filing an application under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023.

A Single judge, Justice V Srishananda held thus while dismissing the petition filed by the mother of a rape victim, challenging grant of bail to the accused charged under provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). It was her case that grant of bail for such a serious offence had resulted in miscarriage of justice.

S.174 BNSS | Karnataka High Court Directs State To Frame Rules On Manner Of Recording Non-Cognizable Offences

Case Title: Asif & ANR AND State of Karnataka

The Karnataka High Court has asked the State Government to frame rules under Section 174 BNSS which mandates the police officer to lodge information on the commission of a non-cognizable offence in a book, in such form as prescribed under the relevant rules framed by the state government.

The court said this after noting that even though BNSS came into force from July 1, 2024 till date no such rules have been framed by the state.

Justice V Srishananda in his order said “On careful consideration of the above provision, it is crystal clear that whenever an information is received by an officer in-charge of the police station within whose jurisdiction a non-cognizable offence has been committed, he is bound to enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept in the police station as the State Government may prescribe in the rules.”

KERALA HIGH COURT

S.173 BNSS | Police Cannot Refuse To Register FIR On Complaint Sent From Abroad If Cognizable Offence Made Out: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 4778 of 2020

The Kerala High Court has held that the police cannot refuse to register an FIR (First Information Report) if a cognizable offence is made out, even in cases where the complaint was forwarded from a foreign country.

In the judgment, Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the concept of 'Zero FIR' has been given statutory recognition by virtue of Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

S.69 BNS| Married Woman Can't Allege Coercion Into Sexual Intercourse On False Promise To Marry: Kerala High Court

Case No: Bail Appl. No. 7916 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 384

The Kerala High Court has recently granted regular bail to a man, who was accused to have enticed a married woman to enter into sexual intercourse with him on a false promise of marriage.

A crime was registered against the petitioner under Sections 84 [Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman] and 69 [Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas expressed doubts as to whether an offence under Section 69 can be attracted when the defacto complainant is a married woman.

Noting that Section 84 is a bailable offence, the Court opined that there is no need for continued detention of the petitioner.

Challenge To Interim Orders Under DV Act Maintainable U/S 528 Of BNSS Only If There Is Illegality Or Irregularity: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Titus v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 5751 of 2025 (Filing No.)

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a petition seeking exercise of inherent powers to set aside an interim order passed under Section 12(1) the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act/DV Act) is not maintainable if the same does not suffer from any blatant irregularity or illegality.

Justice G. Girish observed that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, High Courts must exercise restraint in exercising inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Accused Can Challenge Trial Court's Order Declining Consent To Withdraw Prosecution U/S 360 Of BNSS: Kerala High Court

Case Title: George Alexander @ Prince v. State of Kerala

Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet Nos. 23 & 268 of 2017

The Kerala High Court recently held that an accused can challenge a trial court's 'arbitrary and unreasoned' order refusing to give consent to the state to withdraw prosecution against him under section 360 of BNSS/ section 321 of CrPC, even when the State has chosen not to challenge such orders.

The order was passed by Justice Kauser Edapagath.

The court observed that under the scheme of BNSS/CrPC, prosecution of an offender is primarily the responsibility of the executive. The court laid down the dual requirement under section 360 of BNSS, which states that the application must be made by the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and the consent of the court must be obtained.

The court observed that the object of section 360 of BNSS is to reserve power to the executive government under the supervision of the judiciary.

Corporal Punishment By Teachers Not Crime Unless Penal Law Provides But Extreme/ Sadistic Actions Can Constitute Offence: Kerala High Court

Case Title - XXX v State of Kerala and batch

Case No- Crl. MC 8067/2024, Crl MC 9017/2024, Crl MC 10077/2024

The Kerala High Court has observed that caning of students by teachers or corporal punishment would not constitute an offence under the BNS and Juvenile Justice Act, (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, as the statutes stand now.

The Court however underscored that it is not excluding a case where any "corporal punishment is inflicted on any vital part" of child's body, nor was it excluding any "sadistic tendencies" exhibited by the teachers. It said that these would be exceptional situations which would constitute an offence.

The court was considering the culpability component in the context of BNS and Juvenile Justice Act, (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 when a teacher canes a student in order to discipline him/her.

Magistrates Must Follow S.223(2) BNSS In Complaints Against Public Servants Over Official Duties: Kerala High Court Explains New Provision

Case Title - Suhyb P J v State of Kerala and Ors

The Kerala High Court noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has introduced a material change from the Code of Criminal Procedure by prescribing through Section 223(2) that cognizance of a complaint against a public servant can be taken only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused and after calling for a report from the superior officer.

The Court noted that the CrPC did not have a similar provision.

"Here, it is pertinent to note that Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not contain a provision corresponding to Section 223(2) of BNSS," the Court observed.

Police Must Adopt Digital Reforms Brought By BNSS; Use 'E-Sakshya' For Evidence Documentation: Kerala High Court

Case Title - Suresh v State of Kerala

The Kerala High Court has issued a directive to the State Police, urging immediate and comprehensive reform of investigative practices in line with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Highlighting the critical need for foolproof investigations in heinous crimes such as murder, the Court called on the State Police to urgently upgrade their investigative capabilities through modern training, updated protocols, and strategic investments in forensic technology.

The Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar made these observations while acquitting a man previously convicted of murder due to glaring investigative lapses. The judgment stresses that criminal investigations are bedrock of the justice system and must reflect scientific precision and unwavering diligence.

S.223 BNSS | Accused Must Be Heard Before Magistrate Takes Cognizance Of Offence Based On Complaint: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Saji John and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

The Kerala High Court recently held that a magistrate must give an opportunity of hearing to the accused person before taking cognizance of an offence based on a complaint. The Court found that this is a mandate under the proviso to Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Justice Badharudeen observed:

“Thus, the crucial aspect of Section 223(1) is the first proviso, which mandates that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence without first giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. This is a significant departure from the provisions of the Cr.P.C, which did not mandate this pre-cognizance hearing for the accused.”

S.348 BNSS | Kerala High Court Refuses To Recall POCSO Victim For Further Examination To Change Evidence On Compromise

Case Title: Shiju Krishnan v. State of Kerala

The Kerala High Court has recently held that the powers under Section 311 CrPC or corresponding Section 348 BNSS cannot be invoked to recall a POCSO or rape victim for further cross-examination for changing the evidence given during trial.

Justice G. Girish reiterated the settled-position that the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in a routine manner, and can only be exercised if there are valid and sufficient grounds. The judge opined that the petitioner's attempt to compel the victim to state that the incident of rape did not occur amounted to degrading the sanctity and credibility of judicial proceedings.

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

MP High Court Asks State To Inform If Man Declared As Habitual Offender After FB Comment On Kumbh Mela Was Heard

Case Title: Vivek Pawar v Sub Divisional Magistrate Bichhiya (WP - 28112/2025 (CR)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State to inform whether any show cause notice was issued to a man challenging a Sub-Divisional Magistrate's (SDM) order declaring him a habitual offender for alleged objectionable comment on Facebook concerning the Kumbh Mela.

The plea claims that proceedings against him were initiated based on a comment he made on a Facebook post, pertaining to the Kumbh Mela in Prayagraj. It claims that the comment has been characterised as a comment which might incite communal unrest.

Justice Vishal Mishra in his order, "Counsel appearing for the State is directed to seek instructions in the matter to the effect that as to whether any show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to taking action under Section 129 of the BNSS, 2023. List the matter on 24.07.2025 for consideration".

MP High Court Directs State Not To Compel Man To Execute Bond Over Being Tagged As Habitual Offender After FB Comment On Kumbh Mela

Case Title: Vivek Pawar v Sub Divisional Magistrate Bichhiya (WP - 28112/2025 (CR)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday (July 24) directed the State not to force an individual declared as a "habitual offender" for alleged objectionable comment on Facebook concerning the Kumbh Mela, to fill up the bond in pursuance to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's (SDM) order, until the next hearing.

The high court had in the previous hearing directed the State to inform whether any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before action was taken against him under Section 129 BNSS. The petitioner has approached the high court challenging the SDM's order tagging him as a habitual offender.

ORISSA HIGH COURT

Legitimate Govt Engages, Doesn't Banish Protesters; 'Police State' Mentality Impermissible: Orissa HC Quashes Exclusion Order Against Doctor

In a sharp rebuke to executive overreach, the Orissa High Court on Friday quashed an order of the District Magistrate prohibiting Dr. Randall Sequeira, a medical professional and social worker, from entering Rayagada district for two months ahead of his proposed peaceful anti-mining protest.

A bench of Justice SK Panigrahi termed the order issued under Section 163(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita as "disproportionate, arbitrary and unconstitutional", stating that the constitutional protection of dissent is not "a mere idealistic slogan" but an essential democratic right.

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

S.210(1)(c)BNSS| Court Not Obligated To Record Witness Statement Or Call Aggrieved Party To Take Cognizance Of Offence: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that under Section 210(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a Magistrate is not obligated to record the statement of any witness or call the aggrieved party before taking cognizance of an offence or issuing process.

For context, Section 210(c) BNSS states that the Magistrate can take cognizance of offence upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed

The Court added that, bare reading of the provision is "entirely based upon the satisfaction" of the Magistrate, who comes to know of happening of some offence, on his own or even upon information from any person, other than the police officer.

Punjab & Haryana High Court Asks Union To Prioritise SOP On Redressal Mechanism Against Freezing Of Bank Accounts

Title: M SHOPPE THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, GURINDERJIT SINGH BAWA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked Union Government to prioritise framing of Standard Operating System (SOP) to address the grievances of those whose banks accounts are seized, pursuant to alleged criminal activities.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari while hearing a batch of petitions wherein freezing of accounts were challenged said, "its is expected that considering the difficulties, as being faced by the petitioner(s), on account of the fact that their bank accounts, have been ordered to be seized, and they do not have any remedy for redressal of their grievance, the respondent-Union of India, shall take up the matter on priority basis, and would take a final decision thereof, which shall be communicated to this Court, on or before the next date of hearing."

The Court had asked the Union to come up with the Standard Operating System (SOP) to address the grievances.

High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Alleged Fake Encounter By Punjab Police

Title: Gurtej Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab and others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea as withdrawn by the petitioner, seeking a CBI probe into an alleged fake encounter carried out by the Punjab Police.

The police party was allegedly the same as the one accused of assaulting Col. Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth during the hearing orally observed that the petitioner has no relation with the deceased and held that he has no locus standi to file the present plea. The Court accordingly suggested the petitioner to either withdraw the petition or the Court would proceed to pass an order.

Gurtej Singh Dhillon, filed the petition under Section 528 of BNSS, for marking time bound enquiry under the Supervision of this Court to the CBI into the killing of a young person namely Jaspreet Singh, aged 22 years in an apparently false encounter as described by the police in FIR under Sections 109, 132, 221, 281, 125(b) of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Rajasthan High Court Extends 'Community Service' Under BNSS As Bail Condition, Asks Accused To Serve Swach Bharat Abhiyan

Title: Shivsingh Meena v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 225

The Rajasthan High Court recently enlarged an NDPS accused on bail on a condition that he contribute to government's Swach Bharat mission for 2 hours daily, for two months.

In doing so, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain extended the scope of 'community service' contemplated under the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

The Act introduced community service as a punishment for certain minor offences, as a reformative approach to justice.

SIKKIM HIGH COURT

Plea Filed In 2025 To Quash FIR Lodged In 2022 Would Be Governed By BNSS, Not CrPC: Sikkim High Court

The Sikkim High Court has recently upheld that maintainability of a petition filed in 2025 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking quashing of an FIR lodged on 16.08.2022 for offences alleged to be committed on 13.08.2025.

The central argument raised against the maintainability of the petition was that the BNSS, which repeals the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), came into force on 01.07.2024, and thus the petition ought to have been filed under Section 482 of the erstwhile CrPC.

Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, referring to Section 531 of BNSS— which enacts that if any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation is pending when the BNSS comes into force, then such matters shall be disposed of, continued, held or made as per the provisions of CrPC, held,