Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: May 2026
SUPREME COURT Pre-Cognizance Hearing Of Accused Mandatory For PMLA Complaint When Cognizance Taken After BNSS: Supreme Court Cause Title: PARVINDER SINGH VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT In an important ruling, the Supreme Court has held that where cognizance of an alleged offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is taken by a magistrate after the commencement of...
SUPREME COURT
Cause Title: PARVINDER SINGH VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
In an important ruling, the Supreme Court has held that where cognizance of an alleged offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is taken by a magistrate after the commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), such cognizance would stand vitiated in the absence of compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which mandates granting the accused a prior hearing before taking cognizance, even if the complaint itself had been filed before the BNSS came into force.
A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's decision, which had affirmed the magistrate's order taking cognizance of an offence under the PMLA against the Appellant, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant-accused as mandated under first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS.
BNSS S.223(1) Proviso Mandatory; Cognizance Without Hearing Accused Void Ab Initio: Supreme Court
Cause Title: PARVINDER SINGH VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
The Supreme Court has held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which mandates an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance is taken in a complaint case, is a substantive safeguard flowing from the right to fair trial under Article 21, and non-compliance would render the cognizance order void ab initio. The Court further clarified that an accused need not demonstrate prejudice caused by such non-compliance, as the defect constitutes an illegality that vitiates the proceedings rather than a mere procedural irregularity.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Parvinder Singh against the Directorate of Enforcement in a PMLA case, setting aside the Uttarakhand High Court's judgment as well as the Special Court's order taking cognizance of the Enforcement Directorate's prosecution complaint.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case title - Simran Gupta Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 255
Dismissing a plea for FIR against LoP in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, over his alleged 'Fighting Indian State' remark, the Allahabad High Court today observed that in a parliamentary democracy, criticism of government action or policies is not only permitted but essential.
The Court stressed that criticism or ideological difference may not, by itself, constitute an offence, noting that an elected representative who declares a commitment to fight against a particular policy or ideology is distinct from a person inciting a rebellion.
The High Court emphasized that suspicion cannot be the foundation for criminal prosecution. The bench observed that the petitioner had completely failed to bring forth any material particulars or circumstances to show that the speech explicitly called for secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities as defined under Section 152 of the BNS.
Case title - Ravi Alias Ravindra Singh vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 263
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court recently detailed an exhaustive step-by-step procedure for conducting criminal trials in the absence of a proclaimed offender as per Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri termed the provision as a 'landmark' one for introducing the concept of 'Trial in Absentia' into the Indian criminal justice system
To ensure speedy justice, the Court further streamlined the procedure to prosecute such an absconder and to complete the trial as specified under Section 356 BNSS.
Case title - Santosh Gupta Thru. Her Nephew Nitin Gupta vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 268
The Uttar Pradesh Government recently assured the Allahabad High Court that a serious endeavour would be made to ensure that no arrest would be made in the state without giving the reasons and grounds for arrest to the arrestee.
Additional Advocate General Vinod Kumar Shahi further apprised the Court that he has already written to the State's Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police to strictly follow the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066.
A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava took both the submissions on record.
Case title - Huda Khanam vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 284
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that it cannot directly increase or decrease a maintenance amount while dealing with a plea under its revisional jurisdiction.
A bench of Justice Achal Sachdev observed that the proper remedy for the modification or alteration of maintenance allowance due to changed circumstances lies solely under Section 146 BNSS, which is pari materia with Section 127 CrPC, before the court that passed the original order.
The Court observed that while dealing with a revision plea, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or weigh changed circumstances afresh, as its role is strictly 'supervisory', which is confined to correcting any illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error.
Case Title - Shatrughan Kumar vs Narcotics Control Bureau Thru. Its Regional Office Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 287
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused must be heard before a special Court takes cognizance upon a 'complaint' made (after commencement of BNSS) by an authority under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh ruled thus while relying on the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, which mandates granting the accused a prior hearing before taking cognizance.
Accordingly, the Court set aside a cognizance-taking order of the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Lucknow, for failing to hear the accused at the pre-cognizance stage.
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: P S Ganesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has closed an anticipatory bail petition moved by a judicial department employee accused of circulating anonymous and defamatory petition against district judiciary after the State submitted that the custodial interrogation was not required.
The State submitted that notice has been issued to de-facto complainant, the investigation is still in progress and since the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment below 7 years, the police would follow the procedure under Section 35(3) BNSS "as custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the present matter".
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case title: KUNAL RAMESHBHAI KALYANI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
The Gujarat High Court refused to quash a Secition 69 BNS FIR lodged against a man–stated to be permanent resident of Zambia, accused of having sexual intercourse with the complainant deceitfully over false promise of marriage.
In doing so the court rejected the accused's contention that his mother did not agree to the relationship observing that this was not a bonafide reason.
Case Title: Tofik Shaikh v State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition seeking immediate registration of an FIR in an alleged custodial death case of a man, while permitting the kin of the deceased to take recourse to the statutory remedies available to them under BNSS.
In doing so the court observed that while Supreme Court's Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh judgment mandates registration of an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed, it does not provide a separate mechanism if police refuses to lodge an FIR nor there is a mandate provided that on failure of lodging an FIR the next of kin can directly invoke Article 226 jurisdiction of the high court.
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Case Title: Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
The Jharkhand High Court has held that inquiries into custodial deaths must mandatorily be conducted by Judicial Magistrates under Section 176(1-A) CrPC or Section 196(2) BNSS, and that inquiries by Executive Magistrates cannot operate as a substitute for such judicial inquiry.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a PIL seeking directions for judicial inquiry in every case of death, disappearance, or rape in police or judicial custody.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sabu K.S. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that a person seeking to transfer a case from one Special Court to another Special Court can directly approach the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court.
Justice A. Badharudeen held:
“it is not safe to say that, when a person wants to transfer a case pending before the Special Court under the PC [Prevention of Corruption ]Act to the Special Court under the PML [Prevention of Money Laundering] Act, before approaching the High Court under Section 447 of BNSS the said person shall approach the Sessions Court first and get a rejection order there from, since Special Courts created by special statute exercising exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the offences under the special statute could not be roped into within the ambit of proviso to Section 447 of BNSS.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR against a government school teacher for sharing an Urdu poem on WhatsApp status, observing that the act of sharing the poem without any additional commentary or any intention to incite would not constitute the offence under Section 353(2) of BNS for promoting enmity or public mischief.
The bench of Justice BP Sharma observed;
"the act of the petitioner in sharing a poetic recitation, without any additional commentary or intent to incite, cannot be construed as promoting enmity or public mischief because, the urdu poem written by Shoaib Kaini which was uploaded on the WhatsApp status (DP) by the petitioner and poem relates to the condition and sarcastic take on human rights, abuse of the women in Pakistan or any other country".
Multiple FIRs Alone Not Enough To Invoke 'Organised Crime' Charge Under BNS: MP High Court
Case Title: Hiralal v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRR-3881-2025
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has said mutiple cases against a person are alone not sufficient to invoke charge of organised crime under Section 111(4) BNS, as there "certain basic parameters" which have to be met before the offence can be invoked.
Justice Gajendra Singh was considering a case wherein the court had on an earlier occassion asked the State to explain as to how Section 111 (organised crime) applies in the matter.
The court noted that the State justified invocation of Section 111 on the ground that there were various cases registered against the petitioner at various police stations including one in Thane District, Maharashtra, a second in Cyberabad District, Telangana, and a third also in Telangana with the Cyber Crime Police and the fourth in Jalandhar District, Punjab.
Case Title: Vijay Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRR-1874-2026
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the counsel of a private person assisting the public prosecutor is permitted to submit written arguments but is restricted from making oral arguments or cross-examining the witnesses.
The bench noted that Section 248 of BNSS mandates that the prosecution be conducted by a public prosecutor and therefore, under Section 338(2), permission can be given to a private person only for submitting written arguments after evidence is closed.
Case Title: Vinay Pratap Singh v Pushpendra Singh, MCRC-17776-2026
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that while proviso to S.223 BNSS prescribes procedure followed by Magistrate before taking cognizance mandating accused be given an opportunity of hearing, however such an opportunity does not automatically translate into an obligation to furnish the entire evidence to the accused at threshold.
The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed;
"The proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS is intended to ensure that the accused is heard before cognizance is taken. However, such opportunity does not automatically translate into an obligation to supply entire evidence at the threshold stage, particularly when the proceedings are at the stage of consideration of cognizance".
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
Case Name: Shri Vicky Kharsati V/s State of Meghalaya
The Meghalaya High Court has acknowledged that the prevailing social realities in the State regarding adolescent consensual relationships often culminate in elopement, early marriage, or cohabitation, and must be recognised by society.
The Court noted that such cases frequently lead to the birth of children and have resulted in a growing number of petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, filed with the consent of both the victim and the accused.
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Adikanda Swain & Anr. v. State of Orissa
The Orissa High Court has held that a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) can only be issued to persons accused of committing cognizable offences punishable with an imprisonment for less than seven years or which may extend up to seven years, and not more than that.
Clarifying the position of law and highlighting the error committed by not only the police but also the jurisdictional Magistrate, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed–
“…notice as contemplated U/S. 35(3) of the BNSS is meant for cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine subject to satisfaction of other grounds as enumerated in Sec. 35(1) of the BNSS and it is, therefore, considered that not only the police officer erred in applying the law, but also the learned SDJM passed order granting bail to the co-accused persons without adverting to the relevant provision of law.”
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Title: Chhoti Devi v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court recently denied bail to a mother-in-law accused along with her son and husband of murdering her daughter-in-law (deceased) by strangulation.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu rejected the contention raised by the counsel that being a woman, the applicant deserved to be given the benefit of bail as per the provision under Section 480, BNSS.
The Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Rekha K.C. v Jyotibhai and Anr. and opined that merely if an accused was a lady, the same was not a reason to grant bail when the alleged offence against the concerned woman were serious in nature.
Title: Prashant Kaushik & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence against public servants or direct registration of FIR under Section 175 BNSS without first following the safeguards provided under Section 223 BNSS.
“The said provision marks a conscious and substantive departure from the earlier regime by introducing a safeguard at the pre-cognizance stage. The scheme of Section 223 BNSS clearly envisages that the process of taking cognizance is no longer an instantaneous act but a calibrated judicial exercise, wherein the Magistrate is required to apply his mind in a structured and informed manner…This statutory requirement is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard intended to protect public servants from frivolous, retaliatory, or vexatious prosecutions arising out of their official functions.”
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Case No: CRLR No. 248 of 2026 With Bail Appl. No. 1 of 2026
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that while considering an application for suspension of sentence and bail in a statutory criminal appeal, the Appellate Court is required to examine the merits of the conviction instead of merely interpreting whether Section 430(1) of the BNSS is directory or mandatory.
The Court observed that once the appeal against conviction had been admitted, the Appellate Court ought to have examined whether the conviction was bad or not, and that failure to do so reflected non-application of judicial mind.