- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita...
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Quarterly Digest: July to September 2025
Upasana Sajeev
25 Oct 2025 10:00 AM IST
SUPREME COURT 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...
SUPREME COURT
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.
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.
Cause Title: PRADNYA PRANJAL KULKARNI VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875
The Supreme Court observed that FIRs or charge-sheets may be quashed under Article 226 before cognisance is taken, but once cognisance is taken, the remedy lies under Section 528 BNSS (S. 482 CrPC) to challenge both the FIR/charge-sheet and even the cognisance order, if duly pleaded.
“So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognisance intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS was available to be exercised to quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognisance, provided the same is placed on record along with the requisite pleadings to assail the same and a strong case for such quashing is set up.”, the Court observed.
Cause Title: PRADEEP KUMAR KESARWANI VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880
The Supreme Court laid down the steps to be considered by the High Court while hearing quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS).
The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: -
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the 13 prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
Case Title: MOHAMMED RASAL.C & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR., SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 884
The Supreme Court has expressed disapproval of the practice of High Courts directly entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, bypassing the Sessions Court.
The Court has decided to consider the appropriateness of this practice and issued notice to the Kerala High Court, which passed the order under challenge. The Court also appointed Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, assisted by Adv. G. Arudhra Rao, as amicus curiae in the matter.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta acknowledged that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita conferred concurrent jurisdiction to both the Sessions Court and the High Court to deal with an anticipatory bail application. However, the bench opined that the High Court can directly entertain such matters only in exceptional cases, that too for special reasons to be recorded.
S. 223 CrPC/S. 243 BNSS |Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Joint Trial In Criminal Cases
Cause Title: MAMMAN KHAN VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 904
Interpreting Section 223 Cr.P.C (now Section 243 BNSS), the Supreme Court held that a joint trial is permissible where multiple accused are involved in offences arising out of the same transaction and a separate trial would be warranted only if the acts attributed to each accused are distinct and severable.
The Court laid down the following propositions regarding the joint trial:-
(i) Separate trial is the rule under Section 218 Cr.P.C; a joint trial may be permissible where the offences form part of the same transaction or the conditions in Sections 219 – 223 Cr.P.C. are satisfied, but even then it is a matter of judicial discretion;
(ii) The decision to hold a joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at the outset of the proceedings and for cogent reasons;
(iii) The two paramount considerations in such decision making are whether a joint trial would cause prejudice to the accused, and whether it would occasion delay or wastage of judicial time;
(iv) Evidence recorded in one trial cannot be imported into another, which may give rise to serious procedural complications if the trial is bifurcated; and
(v) An order of conviction or acquittal cannot be set aside merely because a joint or separate trial was possible; interference is justified only where prejudice or miscarriage of justice is shown.
Cause Title: NITIN AHLUWALIA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 923
The Supreme Court on Thursday (Sep. 18) cautioned High Courts against mechanically dismissing quashing petitions based solely on the contents of the FIR, stressing that the surrounding context and circumstances of its filing must also be taken into account in some cases. The Court added that the High Courts must also take into account whether the FIR was a result of a counterblast or a retaliatory measure filed with an oblique motive just to harass the litigant.
While referring to judgments such as CBI v. Aryan Singh and Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, the Court observed that at the S.482 CrPC stage, the High Court is only expected to look at the prima facie possibility of the offence. However, in some cases, the background also must be appreciated.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra criticized the Punjab & Haryana High Court for mechanically refusing to quash the FIR without applying its judicial mind to the surrounding circumstances. The High Court overlooked the context of the filing of the FIR and only relied upon the FIR content, stating that since allegations had been made and the investigation was at a preliminary stage, it was “too premature” to interfere.
Cause Title: ARSHAD NEYAZ KHAN VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 950
The Supreme Court observed that the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot co-exist on the basis of same allegations. The Court said that the offence of cheating (S.420 IPC/S.318 BNS) involves criminal intention from inception; however, for criminal breach of trust (S.406 IPC/S.316 BNS), there is lawful entrustment at the beginning, which is later misappropriated.
So, both these offences cannot exist simultaneously on same facts, as they are "antithetical" to each other.
“For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriates the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver a property. In such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously. Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the offences that are independent and distinct. The said offences cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set of facts as they are antithetical to each other.”, the Court observed.
Case : SANJABIJ TARI v. KISHORE S. BORCAR & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that an accused need not be heard at the pre-cognizance stage of complaints filed for dishonour of cheque as per Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Court agreed with the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Ashok Vs. Fayaz Aahmad, that there is no requirement to issue summons to the accused at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for NI Act complaints.
The Supreme Court also issued a detailed set of directions aimed at ensuring the speedy disposal of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, stressing the need for efficiency, technology integration, and early settlement.
A Bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice NV Anjaria noted that Section 138 cases constitute a significant portion of criminal dockets, particularly in metropolitan courts, and therefore require systemic reforms to avoid delays.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 348
The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to an accused booked under the UAPA and serious offences under BNS for allegedly circulating on his WhatsApp status, a Pakistan-manufactured video containing adverse comments against the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai granted bail to Savej, booked for grave offences including 'waging war against the Government of India' and 'acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India'. He was arrested on May 10 this year.
The bench took into account factors including uncertainty regarding the conclusion of the trial, overcrowding in prisons, and the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
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.
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.”
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.
Case Title: V D MOORTHY v. THE STATE OF AP and others
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 22577/2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the power of a police officer under Section 179(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to secure the attendance of “any person”, is territorially restricted to persons residing within the limits of his own police station or any adjoining station, and the power, therefore, does not extend to persons residing beyond his jurisdiction. It further added that a policeman cannot secure the presence of such a person “as a matter of right.”
At the outset the Court observed that the power of a Police Officer to secure presence of “any person” under Section 179 is not untrammelled and is restricted to “any person” residing within the limits of his own Police Station or adjoining station.
The Court thus concluded that a Police Officer has no power to issue notice under Section 179(1) to any person who is not residing within the limits of his own station or any adjoining station. However, the same does not preclude him from making an investigation to examine such a person by approaching him at his place.
Case Title: KEYUR AKKIRAJU v. UNION OF INDIA and others
Case Number: WP 26143/2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has admitted a writ petition filed by one Keyur Akkiraju, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 20(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Section 20(8), which is a new provision added in the BNSS, provides that the powers and functions of the Deputy Director of Prosecution (DDP) shall be to examine and scrutinise police reports and monitor the cases in which offences are punishable for seven years or more, but less than ten years, for ensuring their expeditious disposal.
Thus, the petition prayed before the Court to declare the phrase "examine and scrutinize the police reports" in Section 20(8) as being intrusive and bad in law, opposed to the fundamental principle of investigation which is to be carried out only by the police, and subsequently requested setting aside of the same as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
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.
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.
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.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case: Swami Vivekananda University & Anr. -versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: W.P.A. No. 17617 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court has held that the objective of Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is to confer power to seek production of evidence deemed relevant for conducting of investigation, and which are not already on record.
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh held: "The ultimate object behind Section 94 of BNSS is to confer power in the hands of the Court or in case of pending investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings to produce document or other thing which the Court or the police authorities deems relevant and cogent for conducting of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings and which are not already on record or are required for the purposes of investigation. Thus, it is a supplementary power available for unearthing truth in course of investigation/inquiry/trial or other proceedings for preventing failure of justice."
Case: In Re : XXX
Case No: C.R.M.(M) 1148 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court has suspended the bail granted to a man accused under the POCSO Act, by the trial court, after finding that the bail had been granted without hearing the victim in the case.
Justice Bivas Pattanayak held: "In the present case, undisputedly, the informant/victim was not notified about the bail application filed by the opposite party no.2 and, therefore, there is factually a denial of right to the informant/victim to participate in the proceedings which is recognised under Section 483(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short, 'BNSS'). In view of the circumstances as enumerated above, since while considering the bail application of the accused opposite party no.2 by the learned trial court, the participatory right of the informant/victim was not secured, as mandated under law, the arguments advanced on behalf of the opposite party no.2 does not hold good."
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.
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.”
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Sahu and another v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: CRMP No. 2714 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash FIR against employees of Elastic Run– a logistics company providing delivery services to Flipkart, which delivered a prohibited knife that was subsequently used as a weapon for committing robbery and murder.
Accordingly, offences under Section 125(b) (act endangering life or personal safety of others) and Section 3(5) (criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were registered against the employees of ElasticRun.
Refusing to quash the FIR, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed,
“…we are of the considered opinion that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The FIR specifically alleges that the knives ordered by the accused persons through Flipkart, which were prohibited under the Arms Act, were delivered through the logistics chain of ElasticRun where the petitioners were employed, despite prior communications and warnings from the police authorities to e-commerce platforms to desist from supplying such prohibited items.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Magistrate Not Empowered To Take Recognisance Of Offence U/S 358 BNSS: Delhi High Court
Case title: Amrita Jain v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1117
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 358 of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (~319 CrPC) does not empower a Magistrate to take re-cognisance of an offence.
So far as Section 358 BNSS is concerned, the High Court said it only comes into play in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence.
“After taking cognizance, in a case such as this one where no further investigation was directed and no supplementary chargesheet came to be filed on any new material coming forth, the Court will have to wait till the stage of Section 358 of BNSS for summoning a person as an accused who has not been charge sheeted,” it held.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
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.
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."
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
The Gauhati High Court today extended the interim protection granted earlier to journalist Abhisar Sharma in connection with an FIR registered against him over his alleged remarks accusing Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of pursuing communal politics.
Sharma moved the HC days after the Supreme Court refused to entertain his challenge to the FIR registered by Assam police under Sections 152 (endangering the sovereignty of the nation), 196 (promoting enmity between different groups), and 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration and security) BNS.
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
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.”
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.”
Case Name: Bhutto Ram V/s State of H.P.
Case No.: Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1933 of 2025
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an accidental shooting of a person, believing him to be a wild animal, amounts to death caused by negligence under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and not the offence of murder under Section 103 BNS.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “…they did not intend to cause the death of Som Dutt and cannot be prima facie held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS, but would be liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 106 of the BNS, which is bailable in nature.”
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.
Case Title: Kapil Kak & Ors v. Government Of J&K, 2025
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh will constitute a Special Bench of three judges to hear a petition challenging a government notification that declared 25 books on Kashmir's political and social history as “forfeited” under Section 98 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Chief Justice Arun Palli indicated that orders would be passed shortly for constituting the Special Bench of 3 Judges required to hear such applications under the statute.
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.”
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
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.
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.”
Case Title: G Satyanarayana Varma AND State of Karnataka & Others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
The Karnataka High Court has said that a second quashing plea under Section 482 CrPC/ BNSS 528 is neither maintainable nor entertainable unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance and the grounds which were manifestly available at the time of first plea cannot be exhumed later to prop up a second petition.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said:
"The second petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS is neither maintainable nor entertainable, unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance. Grounds that were manifestly available at the time of first petition, cannot be exhumed later, to prop up a second petition...Law cannot bend to repeated challenges, devoid of new substance nor it can ignore the gravity of allegations that undoubtedly wants an adjudication in a full blown trial.”
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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."
Case Title: Venu Gopalakrishnan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that anticipatory bail applications can be entertained by the High Courts and there is no need for parties to first approach the Sessions Court in light of the precedents in the case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation while considering an anticipatory bail plea preferred by an IT-firm owner in an alleged case of rape and sexual harassment of his female employee.
The Court had considered the maintainability of the bail application before proceeding to decide the case in light of the recent observation made by the Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal. C & Another v. State of Kerala, expressing concern regarding anticipatory bail applications being filed directly before the High Court before approaching the Sessions Court. The Apex Court had issued notice to the High Court in the case.
Case Title: Shaji @ Shaiju v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
The Kerala High Court recently permitted the withdrawal of two criminal appeals filed by convicts by exercising the inherent power available to it under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure).
Justice Gopinath P. clarified that such power to permit withdrawal of appeals is available only to the High Courts and not to subordinate courts entertaining appeals. He observed:
“…in cases like these where the appellants have served the entire sentence (of imprisonment), have already paid the entire fine and or served the default sentence, and are not interested in removing any stigma of conviction, it would be a proper exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C/528 of the BNSS to allow the appeal to be withdrawn. Since such inherent power is not available to Courts subordinate to the High Court, a request for withdrawal cannot be entertained by any appellate court subordinate to the High Court.”
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused U/S 69 BNS, Cites Consensual Relationship With Victim
Case Title: Vishnu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 578
The Kerala High Court granted bail to a man booked for engaging in sexual relations with a divorced woman on the pretext of marriage, observing that prima facie there seemed to be a consensual relationship between the two.
The case arose from allegations against the petitioner, accused under Sections 69(Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc), 74(Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), and 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt) of the BNS.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while granting bail, emphasized that the willing participation in a two-year relationship indicated a consensual relationship between the two.
Referring to the complainant's statement the court said:
“A reading of the above statement prima facie indicates that there was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim for almost two years. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the marriage of the victim is still subsisting, her statement mentions that she is a divorcee. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner is a divorced lady, taking note of the long relationship between the petitioner and the victim, and that she had willingly gone with him to his house and other places and engaged in sexual intercourse, I am of the view that there is an indication of a consensual relationship. Of course, that is a matter to be concluded after the investigation".
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
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".
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.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: K Balachenniappan v. Jeyakrishnan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
The Madras High Court recently observed that the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act would override the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita since the former was a special law.
Justice Shamim Ahmed added that the offences under Section 138 of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act were compoundable at any stage, even after the dismissal of the revision/appeal. The court noted that even a convict undergoing imprisonment could compound the offence.
The court noted that Section 147 of the NI Act began with a non obstante clause and as such, a dispute in the nature of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act could be compromised irrespective of any other legislation, including the BNSS. The court noted that though BNSS laid down procedures, it crystallised some enforceable rights and obligations and hence, could be given the status of a general law of procedure. Thus, as per the accepted proposition of law, the court reiterated that a special law would prevail over a general law, and the provisions of the NI Act would prevail over the provisions of the BNSS.
ORISSA HIGH COURT
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.
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.”
Case Title: Harsha C v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 116
The Orissa High Court has waived a bail condition imposed by a Sessions Court requiring the accused to furnish two sureties, one of whom must be his 'kin/relative', on the ground that putting such 'onerous' condition defeats the purpose of bail.
A single bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy also held that putting such conditions which are impossible to comply is against the intention of the legislature. It also observed –
“After granting bail, imposing excessive and onerous conditions, which are impossible for compliance by the accused for his release from custody is not the spirit of law and would be considered depriving the accused of his personal liberty without the sanction of law.”
The petitioner filed this miscellaneous application under Section 483(1)(a)/(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging a peculiar condition imposed by the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi whereby he asked the accused-petitioner to furnish two solvent sureties, one of whom must be his relative/kin.
Case Title: Narottam Prusty v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 123
Filling a legislative gap concerning interplay of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ('BNSS') and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ('POCSO Act') regarding limitation period for filing a 'discharge application', the Orissa High Court has held that an accused under the latter enactment can prefer an application seeking discharge under Section 250(1) of the BNSS within sixty days from the date on which he is furnished with the police papers, as provided under Section 231, BNSS.
Addressing the issue, which arose due to the absence of a specific 'committal provision' under the POCSO Act, the Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held –
“…this Court is persuaded to take the considerate view that in cases before Special Courts instituted under special statutes like the POCSO Act, as in the present matter, where there is no contemplation for committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the time period of 60 days for preferring a discharge application under Section 250(1) BNSS may be so interpreted as commencing from the date of supply of documents and police papers to the accused.”
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
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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
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, “The meaning of the sentences needs no further elucidation being self-explanatory. Suffice it to comprehend consequently that, any appeal/application/trial/inquiry/investigation, instituted on or after 01-07-2024, has to be considered in terms of the provisions of the BNSS.”
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)?"