LiveLaw Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: October 2026
SUPREME COURT Delhi Protest | Supreme Court Refuses To Examine Challenge To Section 163 BNSS, Issues Notice On Plea Challenging S. 172 BNSS Case Title: Samriddhi Das v. Union of India and Ors. In the pleas arising from the recent Delhi protests, the Supreme Court on Thursday (October 15) said that it will not examine constitutional validity of Section 163 of BNSS, 2023...
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Samriddhi Das v. Union of India and Ors.
In the pleas arising from the recent Delhi protests, the Supreme Court on Thursday (October 15) said that it will not examine constitutional validity of Section 163 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 144 of CrPC), which empowers executive magistrates to issue prohibitory orders.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of Section 144 CrPC, the provision corresponding to Section 163 BNSS, in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, (1961) 3 SCR 423.
The Court, however, notice on a challenge to Section 172 BNSS(which was not there in CrPC), which empowers police officers to detain or remove people who resist, refuse or disregard their directions, and directed the Union Government to file its reply within two weeks.
Case Title: Pinarayi Vijayan v Adv KM Shajahan
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 21) observed that Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) expands the safeguards available to public servants before a Magistrate orders an investigation against them, unlike the erstwhile Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observation while allowing former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other petitioners to challenge a Kerala High Court Single Judge's direction to register an FIR in the CMRL-Exalogic case.
The Court explained that Section 156(3) CrPC did not require a public servant or the public servant's superior to participate in the process before a Magistrate directed the registration of an FIR. Section 175(4) BNSS, however, incorporates a procedure involving the public servant and the superior officer in case of alleged offences committed during the course of the discharge of his official duties, the Court said.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case Title: Moti Ram Jaat @ Moti Ram Jaat Fauji vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
The Allahabad High Court has held that the 'second' arrest of an accused already in custody in another case amounts to a "fresh arrest" and therefore, the grounds for such arrest must be communicated to the accused in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
A bench of Justice Manish Mathur said that a subsequent formal arrest cannot be treated merely as a change of custody when the accused is already under remand in an earlier case.
The Court subsequently held that a subsequent formal arrest of an accused already in custody amounts to a fresh arrest; therefore, the safeguards under Article 22(1), read with Section 48(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), must be followed.
Case Title: Ravi Chaurasiya And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
The Allahabad High Court observed that, under Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the police have a duty to inform a suspect of his right to have counsel of his choice present during interrogation, even before he is formally arrested.
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev held that the police cannot avoid this safeguard by keeping a suspect formally unarrested and interrogating him at the police station.
Case Title: Mohd Saakir @ Mohd Sakir v. State of U.P.
The Allahabad High Court has held that a transgender woman, even after undergoing sex-reassignment surgery, would not fall within the statutory definition of 'woman' under Section 69 BNS (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.)
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal thus granted bail to a man who was accused of establishing a physical relationship with a transgender woman on a false promise of marriage and subsequently refusing to marry her.
The Court was of the view that a transgender person has a separate identity under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Yarragorla Itukanalu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a person aggrieved by the police's failure to register a FIR must ordinarily pursue the remedies available under the BNSS, before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution unless urgent intervention is warranted. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 247]
The case arose from a petition filed by a 65-year-old man alleging police inaction on his complaint about the alleged fraudulent registration of a document. He sought an FIR against the private individual allegedly involved and others, including officials of the Sub-Registrar's Office, Anantapur Rural.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Title: Kasif Sahabuddin Khan v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court had held that the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 482(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in cases involving offences under Sections 65 or 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is not absolute. The Court observed that the application can be examined to determine whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie made out; if they are, the statutory bar operates and the application is not maintainable.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Case Title: Dr Rita Bakshi v. Seema Bajaj & Anr.
The Delhi High Court has held that under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a Magistrate must first examine the complainant and the witnesses present on oath, unless such examination is exempted by law, before issuing notice to the accused and granting an opportunity of being heard on the question of taking cognizance.
The Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja clarified that the hearing of the accused is mandatory before formal cognizance is taken, but the notice cannot be issued immediately upon presentation of the private complaint, before the statements of the complainant and witnesses are recorded.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case Title: VINUBHAI VALLABHBHAI DHORAJIYA PRESIDENT OF GAYATRI NAGAR SOCIETY Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS
The Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the registration of a FIR is premature and not maintainable when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is already available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 299]
Consequently, Justice J.C. Doshi dismissed the petition seeking directions to the police to register a case against a former president of Gayatri Nagar Society over alleged illegal possession of a common plot allegedly belonging to the society
The High Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (2016) and the High Court ruling in Sujal Vishwas Attawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2026).
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Bajaj Finance Limited v/s State of H.P. & Ors
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a non-banking financial company (NBFC) cannot be compelled to produce pledged gold ornaments allegedly linked to a criminal offence merely through a notice issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The Court observed that the investigating agency must approach the competent court under Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS to seek appropriate directions for the production of such property. The Court accordingly quashed the notice issued to Bajaj Finance Limited.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Case Title: Bansi Lal Bhardwaj v. S. Gagandeep Singh
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory bar on a second revision petition.
The Court further observed that although Section 528 does not prescribe a limitation period, 90 days should be treated as a reasonable time for filing a petition under the provision, and delay beyond that period must be explained.
Dismissing a petition filed by an accused facing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court also held that an accused seeking to establish a defence based on land transactions need not examine every person associated with the transactions when the defence can be substantiated through original or certified copies of sale deeds.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: X VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
The Karnataka High Court has held that the offence under Section 69 BNS—which penalises sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means or false promises of marriage which does not amount to rape—cannot be invoked against a woman.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde partially quashed an FIR registered against a woman for the offences under Sections 69, 308 (2) (Extortion), 351(2) (Criminal Intimidation) read with Section 3(5) (Criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the BNS and under Sections 66E (Violation of Privacy) and 67A (Publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit act) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The woman's husband has also been arrayed as an accused in the FIR.
“Admittedly, the petitioner is a women [sic] and is arrayed as accused No.2 and the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, cannot be attracted against the petitioner and the allegations in the complaint do not indicate any such act by the petitioner,” the High Court held.
Case Title: S P SHANTHI PRASAD VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
The Karnataka High Court has held that the mere use of abusive or intemperate language would not, by itself, constitute the offence of intentional insult or criminal intimidation in the absence of specific statutory ingredients.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court recently held that low IQ or intellectual disability would not make an accused unfit for trial if he has the functional capacity to understand and participate in proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 550]
Justice Jobin Sebastian referred to Section 368 [Procedure in case of person with mental illness tried before Court] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and observed:
“It is significant that the mere fact that an accused has a low IQ or suffers from intellectual disability does not, by itself, render him incapable of making his defence or unfit to stand trial. The statutory test is whether the disability or mental condition is of such a nature as to render the accused incapable of entering upon his defence. Therefore, the existence of an intellectual disability has to be considered in the context of the actual functional capacity of the accused to understand and participate in the proceedings. If the mere existence of intellectual disability or a low IQ were sufficient to render an accused incapable of standing trial, every person suffering from such disability would, irrespective of the degree of functional capacity possessed by him, be excluded from criminal proceedings.”
Case Title: Udayan v. X and Ors
The Kerala High Court recently held that hiding live-in relationship with another woman and child born in it would amount to 'deceitful means' employed to have sexual intercourse with a woman as per Section 69 BNS. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 556]
Justice A. Badharudeen made the observation while considering a plea for anticipatory bail under Section 18A of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: AJ v State of Madhya Pradesh
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that the accused's assertion that the relationship between the parties was consensual cannot, by itself, be treated as a conclusive entitlement to seek anticipatory bail under Section 69 BNS (sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or false promise to marry). [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 399]
The bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari observed:
"However, at this stage, the mere assertion that the relationship was consensual cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive of the Applicant's entitlement to anticipatory bail".
Case Title: RPT v State of MP
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that even though Section 107 of BNS deals with abetment of suicide of a child, the prosecution still has the burden to disclose the ingredients of the offence. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 433]
The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed,
"Section 107 of the BNS deals with abetment of suicide of a child or a person of unsound mind. Though the provision is attracted to the suicide of a child, the prosecution must still disclose the ingredients of abetment, namely, the requisite act of instigation, intentional aid or the other statutory ingredients of abetment. The fact that the deceased was a minor, by itself, cannot dispense with the requirement of establishing a legally cognizable act attributable to the accused".
Case Title: AAM v State of MP
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the prosecutrix, being an educated, financially independent woman working as a bank manager, does not, by itself, determine whether her consent was allegedly obtained through deception. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 435]
The court further elucidated that the fact that matrimonial negotiations had taken place between the parties also cannot conclusively establish the absence of dishonest intentions.
Emphasizing that the court cannot, under inherent jurisdiction, examine whether such conduct demonstrates a genuine intention, the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi rejected the accused man's plea seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 69 of BNS (sexual intercourse where consent is obtained by deception or false promise to marry).
ORISSA HIGH COURT
The Orissa High Court has held that teachers cannot be prosecuted for merely maintaining discipline and reprimanding a student against intoxication, which in turn drove the student to take away his own life by way of suicide, without having any criminal intent. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 117]
While setting aside an order of cognizance against teachers and warden of a school, the Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed–
“A regular warning lacks the criminal intent. If a student is overly sensitive or sentimental, a teacher cannot be blamed for a tragic outcome that an ordinary person could not anticipate from a basic routine discipline. Having said that, since the petitioners are the faculty members and warden of the school in question, having had no direct involvement in the death of the deceased, cannot be held in any way responsible for having abetted his suicidal death.”
PATNA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Tiwary v. State of Bihar and Anr
The Patna HC has held that the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 creates a clear embargo on a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence without first affording the accused an opportunity of being heard. The Court held that violation of this requirement, which incorporates principles of natural justice, is a serious legal infirmity and cannot be treated as a mere irregularity.
The Court noted that the safeguard had been incorporated in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It held that denial of this statutory right was not a mere procedural irregularity but constituted a “serious legal infirmity” affecting the validity of the cognizance order. The Court nevertheless proceeded to examine whether the prosecution could survive on merits.
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Avtar Singh v. M/s Des Raj & Co.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the power to recall witnesses and summon evidence under Section 348 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 311 CrPC), though wide, cannot be invoked merely because an accused wants to bolster his defence after his evidence has been closed.
Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissing a petition by the accused in a cheque dishonour case, observed that the power must be exercised where the evidence sought is necessary for a just decision of the case, "and not merely because a party wishes to improve, supplement or reconstruct its case after the closure of evidence."
Case Title: Baldev Singh Bajwa v. State of Punjab & Anr.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused facing offences that are not punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more cannot be declared a “proclaimed offender” under Section 84(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. At most, such an accused can be declared a “proclaimed person” or “absconder.”
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal set aside a Kharar Magistrate's order declaring the accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case a proclaimed offender.
The Court observed,
“...the offences invoked against the petitioner i.e. Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC are not punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more as per Section 84(4) BNSS. Therefore, petitioner could not have been declared proclaimed offender but a “proclaimed person” or “absconder”. On this ground too, impugned order is vitiated.”
Case Title: Harjeet Singh Puri v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the requirement of obtaining a factual report from a public servant's superior officer under Section 223(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be dispensed with merely because sanction for prosecution has been granted.
The Court clarified that before taking cognizance of an Enforcement Directorate (ED) complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against a public servant, the Special Court must comply with the safeguards under Section 223(2) BNSS.
These include giving the public servant an opportunity to make assertions regarding the circumstances leading to the alleged offence and obtaining a factual report from an officer superior to him.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rajasthan High Court Invokes India-US Treaty To Serve Summons On Rape Complainant Living In America
Case Title: Chander Bhushan v State of Rajasthan & Anr
Rajasthan High Court invoked the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) signed between Indian and the USA, read with Section 110 of BNSS, for ascertaining the whereabouts and serving notice to a woman in a rape case who was stated to have shifted to the USA after filing the complaint.
The court said that as per the MLAT Guidelines, the USA does not object to service through postal means or informal delivery through diplomatic/consular missions under Article 10(a) of Hague Service Convention.
In this light, the Court referred to Section 110, BNSS and the MLAT between Indian and the USA, opining that the service through diplomatic channel was a valid mode for securing presence of person residing abroad.