Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Annual Round Up 2025
SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To MP Cartoonist After His Apology For Objectionable Post On Prime MinisterCase Title – Hemant Malviya v. State of Madhya PradeshThe 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...
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.
Criminal Court Cannot Review Or Recall Its Judgment Except To Correct Clerical Errors: Supreme Court
Case: State of Rajasthan v Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 984
The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court exercising criminal jurisdiction cannot recall or review its own judicial order under the guise of inherent powers, except to correct a purely clerical or accidental error. Setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's direction transferring investigation to the CBI in a mining-related dispute, the Court held that the recall of an earlier order by invoking Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) was beyond jurisdiction.
"Law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a criminal Court has no power to recall or review its own judgment. The only permissible action is to correct or rectify clerical errors by virtue of Section 403 BNSS [Section 362 CrPC]," the Court observed.
Case Title: MOHAMMED RASAL.C & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR., SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025
Although the law confers concurrent jurisdiction both on the Sessions Court and the High Court to hear anticipatory bail applications, ordinarily the Sessions Court must be approached first, opined the amici curiae appointed by the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthara and Advocate G Arudhra Rao, the amici appointed by the Court in this issue, suggested that High Courts can be approached directly for anticipatory bail only in exceptional circumstances. They recommended that while both High Courts and Sessions Courts enjoy concurrent powers to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC (now Section 482 of the BNSS), the Sessions Courts should be treated as the primary forum for such applications.
BCCI Supports Criminalization Of Match-Fixing; Seeks Intervention In Case Before Supreme Court
Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. Versus ABRAR KAZI AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 9408-9411/2022
In a matter flagging the consequences of betting and match-fixing, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has come out in support of constitution of match-fixing as a criminal offense.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was informed of the BCCI's stance today by Advocate Shivam Singh, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter.
Singh apprised the Court that BCCI has filed an intervention application supporting criminalization of match-fixing. This application states that match-fixing constitutes an offense under the IPC (replaced by BNS), inasmuch as an accused can be charged with "cheating".
Case Title: Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole v. Union of India & Others
In a significant step to strengthen the victim compensation framework, the Supreme Court has directed all Special and Sessions Courts across the country to issue appropriate directions for the payment of victim compensation in eligible cases. The Court observed that the absence of such directions from trial courts has become a major impediment to victims receiving compensation under statutory schemes.
The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan passed the order while hearing a public interest petition filed by Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole seeking effective implementation of victim compensation schemes.
The Bench also ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to all High Courts for circulation among Principal District Judges and Special Courts.
"the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts shall communicate this order to the Directors of all the State Judicial Academies for onward communication to all Principal District Judges that the Special Courts/Session Courts and also to impress upon concerned Special Court Judges with regard to the aspect of payment of victim compensation during the course of their training in the State Judicial Academies in accordance with Section 357A of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 396 of the BNSS and POCSO Act and Rules," the Court ordered.
Cause Title: MUSKAN VERSUS ISHAAN KHAN (SATANIYA) AND OTHERS
The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore bench order that had quashed an FIR under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, filed by a woman against her husband and his family.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra criticized the High Court for holding a 'mini-trial' at the quashing stage, going into the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
Case Title: MOHAMMED RASAL.C & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR., SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025
The Supreme Court on Wednesday referred to a three-judge bench the issue of whether High Courts can directly entertain anticipatory bail applications filed without first approaching the Sessions Courts.
A 2-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ordered that the matter be placed before a 3-judge bench.
It was in September that the present bench took up this issue in the case Mohammed Rasal C v State of Kerala after expressing disapproval of the practice of the Kerala High Court to directly entertain anticipatory bail matters. The Court expressed the view that though Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Courts and Sessions Courts, applications for anticipatory bail should ordinarily be moved first before the Sessions Court, and that direct recourse to the High Court should be reserved for exceptional cases.
Cause Title: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VERSUS ANIL KUMAR DEY
In an important ruling, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 10) ruled that the police/investigating agencies are empowered to freeze the bank account of a person under Section 102 Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita)., against whom a proceeding is initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”).
Dismissing a challenge raised by a public servant accused of amassing assets disproportionate to known sources of income, the Court clarified that the general seizure powers under the CrPC operate independently and are not displaced by the special attachment mechanism provided in the PC Act.
High Courts:
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.
Case title - Sajid Chaudhary vs. State of U.P.
The Allahabad High Court has observed that merely posting a message showing support for another country may create anger or disharmony among citizens of India and may also be punishable under Section 196 BNS (promoting enmity), but it will not attract the stringent provisions of Section 152 BNS (Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India).
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai made the observation while granting bail to one Sajid Chaudhary who has been accused of forwarding a Facebook post stating 'Pakistan Zindabad'.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) recently stayed the arrest of a man accused of sharing a morphed photograph of former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav with a woman alleged to have links with Pakistan and is currently facing an espionage case.
A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh passed the interim order while hearing a plea file by accused-Arun Kumar seeking quashing of the FIR as well as protection from arrest.
The FIR in question was registered in August this year under Sections 147, 196, 197, 353 of the BNS, Section 67 IT Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Case title - Nitish Agrawal Alias Sona Pandey vs. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court recently granted interim protection against coercive processes to a man accused of allegedly threatening Aazad Samaj Party MP Chandrashekhar Azad 'Ravan' in a WhatsApp group message.
A bench Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra granted relief to one Nitish Agrawal Alias Sona Pandey who is facing a cognizance and summoning order in connection with an FIR lodged under Section 351(2) BNS (Criminal Intimidation).
The Allahabad High Court has mandated that in all petitions where provisions or references of the newly promulgated criminal laws [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)] are mentioned, the corresponding provisions of the repealed Acts [(Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Indian Evidence Act (IEA)] must also be added alongside.
A bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh directed the registry to adhere to this direction as it noted that in the applications, petitions, appeals and revisions where provisions of new criminal laws are cited, the non-mentioning of the repealed laws is causing 'tremendous inconvenience' to the HC as well as to the advocates appearing in such matters.
The Court added that advocates themselves have repeatedly suggested that mentioning the corresponding provisions of the old Acts would "facilitate the earliest adjudication of the matters".
Case title - Afaq Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others
The Allahabad High Court has observed that circulating a WhatsApp message to multiple persons alleging that people of a particular religious community were being targeted would prima facie amount to offence of promoting feeling of enmity, hatred & ill will between religious communities under Section 353 (2) BNS.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava made this observation while refusing to quash an FIR lodged against petitioner (Afaq Ahmad) who had allegedly forwarded an inflammatory message to several individuals on WhatsApp.
The Uttar Pradesh Government last week informed the Allahabad High Court that the investigation into an FIR arising out of an alleged social-media post over Pahalgam Terror Attack by an assistant professor of Lucknow University, Dr Madri Kakoti (aka Dr Medusa) has concluded and a charge-sheet will be filed shortly.
Counsel for the State told the Court that several sections earlier included in the FIR, including Section 152 BNS [Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India], have been dropped and the charge-sheet now carries only Sections 352 [Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace] and 302 [Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person] of BNS.
In view of these submissions, the anticipatory-bail petition of Dr. Kakoti was disposed of in terms of the order passed in June this year granting interim anticipatorybail to her.
In a significant sweeping order aimed at ending rampant encroachments over ponds, grazing lands and other public utility properties, the Allahabad High Court has directed a crackdown across Uttar Pradesh, holding that inaction by Pradhans, Lekhpals and revenue officers in reporting or removing encroachments over Gram Sabha land amounts to criminal breach of trust.
In its 24-page order, a bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri not only directed removal of encroachments over public land or land reserved for public utility purposes across the state within 90 days but also ordered departmental and criminal proceedings against officials who fail to act as per the law.
Case title - Javed vs. State of U.P.
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a Meerut resident, Javed, accused of posting on WhatsApp a video allegedly showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Prime Minister of Pakistan talking to each other and urging to "exchange poisonous words" and "engage in war" so that the people of both countries remain "mum for 5 years".
The purported video also carried an audio suggesting that the leaders were talking among themselves that public of both nations were not happy with them and wanted to remove them from their posts.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while considering the allegations in the FIR and the submissions of both sides, observed that the video uploaded on the applicant's WhatsApp status, prima facie, did not attract the ingredients of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India).
Case title - Afaq Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others
The Allahabad High Court has observed that even a WhatsApp message not explicitly referring to religion may, through its 'unsaid' words and 'subtle' message, promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between communities.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava observed thus while refusing to quash an FIR lodged against petitioner (Afaq Ahmad) who had allegedly forwarded an inflammatory message to several individuals on WhatsApp.
Case title - Asha vs. State of U.P. and connected matters
In a significant verdict, the Allahabad High Court recently held that conceptualizing defence strategy, gathering and adducing defence evidence and effectively conducting the defence case can constitute valid grounds for granting bail, but only at an appropriate stage of the trial.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot, while deciding a batch of 18 (second) bail applications, ruled that the right to prepare and conduct an effective defence is an essential component of a fair trial and therefore flows directly from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The judge clarified that while such bail cannot be claimed as a matter of course, it can be considered once the prosecution evidence is concluded or nearing closure, particularly when proceedings under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) are about to commence and the accused needs liberty to prepare and present defence evidence.
Case title - Umed @ Ubaid Kha and others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and others
In a sharp indictment of official overreach, the Allahabad High Court recently quashed an FIR registered 5 persons under UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and the BNS as it observed that the case represented a "glaring example of the State authorities falling and scrambling over each other in order to score brownie points".
The Bench noted that VV's subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS made the situation unambiguous that she had travelled alone to Delhi, stayed there and later returned voluntarily.
The Court also noted that offences under Sections 316(2) and 317(2) (criminal breach of trust and stolen property) did not warrant automatic arrest under the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case as these offences only entail a sentence of five years and three years respectively.
Allahabad High Court Stays Trial Against SP MLA, Wife In Domestic Help Suicide Abetment Case
Case title - Zahid Beg Alias Zahid Jamal Beg And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court recently stayed further proceedings in a sessions trial against Samajwadi Party MLA from Bhadohi, Zahid Beg @ Zahid Jamal Beg and his wife (Seema Beg), who have been accused in the suicide abetment case linked to their domestic help.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed the interim order while hearing Section 528 BNSS plea filed by the sitting MLA and his wife seeking protection from coercive action.
The single judge noted that a similar application had already been filed by the MLA's wife and it had called for a counter-affidavit in that matter.
Case title - Seema Beg vs. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court last week quashed the charge-sheet, cognizance order and the entire proceedings against the wife of sitting Samajwadi Party MLA who was facing allegations of human trafficking and was also booked under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 as well as the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted relief to MLA Zaid Beg's wife, Seema Beg, as it observed that even if the prosecution material is taken at its face value, no prima facie case was made out under any of the invoked provisions.
Recently, the HC had stayed further proceedings in a sessions trial against Beg and his wife who are facing charges of suicide abetment linked to the case of their domestic help.
Police had filed a charge-sheet against Seema Beg and her husband under Sections 143(4), 143(5) BNS and 79 JJ Act along with Section 4 and 16 of Bonded Labour Act.
The Allahabad High Court last week directed a forensic examination of multiple signatures on record after prima facie discrepancies surfaced in a pending PIL case which suggested possible impersonation, forgery, fabrication and misuse of the judicial process.
A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra passed the order while dealing with an application u/S 379 BNSS filed by Respondent No. 5 to initiate inquiry against the petitioner on the allegation that she filed a false affidavit and forged documents, including signatures of his counsel.
Dismissed a complainant's appeal challenging the acquittal of three accused in a 2018 assault case, the Allahabad High Court today observed that while the testimony of an injured witness is ordinarily placed on a higher pedestal, this principle may not apply when the accused is also injured.
A bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II added that injury on a witness may be a guarantee of his presence on the spot, but it is no guarantee of the truth of his deposition.
Case title - Adnan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court last week refused to allow a writ petition seeking to quash the FIR in the September 2025 Bareilly violence case wherein allegations are to the effect that police force was attacked by a mob with brickbats, stones and acid bottles.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prashad, however, disposed of the plea by observing that it is open to the petitioner to avail other legal remedies as may be advised.
Briefly put, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR wherein stringent provisions have been invoked under the BNS, including Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 124(2), 121, 125, 352, 351(3), 109, 299 and 223.
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the power to alter or add a charge under Section 216 CrPC is 'exclusively confined' to the Court and that no party, neither the complainant nor the accused has any 'vested' right to seek any such addition or alteration of charge
A bench of Justice Abdul Shahid thus set aside an order by the Additional District Judge/FTC-II, Varanasi, which allowed a complainant's application to invoke stringent provisions of the POCSO Act against the accused at a later stage of the trial.
Case Title - Prempal And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that a police report (charge-sheet) filed for a non-cognizable offence must be treated as a 'complaint' by the Magistrate and not as a police case/state case. This is in conformity with the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Court further noted that in such cases, a Judicial Magistrate cannot issue summons without first affording the accused an opportunity of being heard as has been mandated under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS.
Case title - Ashwani Anand vs State of U.P. and 3 others
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act against a man who married the alleged victim, who also favoured quashing. as it observed that forcing a happily married couple to face trial merely to record a hostile testimony would be an "irony of fate" and an "instrument of harassment”.
A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra thus allowed the plea of one Ashwani Anand observing that it cannot remain a "silent spectator" or "mere bystander" when the ends of justice demand immediate intervention.
The Court added that non-exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (482 CrPC) would defeat the very purpose of law and would render a written statutory provision for inherent powers a mere waste paper work of the legislature.
Case title - Nikhil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another
Coming down heavily on the 'abuse' of the legal process to settle personal scores, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that only a 'victim' within the meaning of CrPC and BNSS can seek cancellation of bail granted to an accused.
Thus, dismissing a bail cancellation plea moved by a person unconnected to the original crime, a Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the applicant as it termed the plea 'frivolous' and 'vindictive'.
The Court noted that the applicant does not fall within the statutory concept of 'victim', which is confined to the person who has suffered loss or injury in that very case (or their guardian/legal heir), to seek cancellation of bail.
The Court further clarified that the expanded victim rights regime introduced under the BNSS/CrPC was meant to empower victims in their own cases and not to allow a victim from one matter to intervene vindictively in an unrelated case.
Case title - Vishwa Bandhu vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash an FIR noting that the Chargesheet and the cognizance order was not brought on record.
A Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha held that a plea under Section 528 BNSS is not maintainable if the applicant challenges only the FIR without placing the charge sheet and the order of cognizance on record.
The Court held so while relying on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in the case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by folk singer Neha Singh Rathore in connection with an FIR lodged against her for allegedly making objectionable posts on social media regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pahalgam terror attack.
A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh observed that the 'X' Posts/tweets posted by Rathore were against the Prime Minister of India and that the PM's name had been used in 'disrespectful manner' in the alleged posts.
Case title - Abhihita Misra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Homes Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Clarifying the procedure for obtaining a copy of First Information Report (FIR) in 'sensitive' cases where they are not uploaded online, the Allahabad High Court recently noted that in such cases, an "aggrieved person" can apply directly to the Superintendent of Police (SP) or Commissioner of Police, as the case maybe, seeking a copy of the FIR.
HC referred to the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in its 2016 verdict in Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India and Another, which bars police from uploading FIRs related to sexual offences, insurgency and terrorism on the website of the State governments.
Case title - Hindu Front For Justice Thru. National Convenor Sharad Chandra Srivastava And 8 Others Vs. Union Of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs,Govt Of India,New Delhi And 5 Others
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Thursday disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a review of the effectiveness of the current legal framework regarding the protection of Hindu deities and religious books from denigration.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed that while the making or amending of laws lies strictly within the domain of the Legislature, the implementation of existing laws falls within the domain of the Executive.
The petition specifically stated that the word 'Devta' included Lord Vishnu, Lord Ram, Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva, Lord Bramha, Maata Sita, Goddess Durga, Devi Radha and Brahmins. Furthermore, the plea also sought protection against the burning and insulting of 'Sacred Books', including the Ramcharitmanas, Manusmriti, Bhagvad Gita and Valmiki Ramayana.
Therefore, a direction was sought for the State to review the effectiveness of Sections 295, 295A, 298, 153A, 153B and 505 of the IPC (now corresponding to Sections 196, 298, 299, 300 and 302 BNS).
Case title - Ram Kewal Bharti @ Bablu And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
In a strongly worded order, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that the mere distribution of the Bible or the act of preaching a religion does not constitute an offence under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani also admonished the UP Police for what it termed as "bending backward" to arrest the accused immediately after the FIR was lodged, despite the absence of any victim coming in front at that stage to substantiate claims of forced conversion.
The Bench further asked how charges under Section 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) and Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation) BNS, could be sustained against the petitioners when they were potentially defending their property from intrusion.
In a move aimed at overhauling the coordination between the police and prosecution machinery across UP, the Director General (Prosecution) in Uttar Pradesh last month issued a strict circular directing all Prosecuting Officers to ensure that instructions from police stations reach trial courts without delay.
The directive was issued following an intervention by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) which took notice of the administrative lethargy in a case which resulted in the delaying of a surrender application of the accused.
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday issued show cause notices for civil contempt to the Superintendent of Police (Mau), the Station House Officer (Maduban) and the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Mau, for taking a woman into custody despite a specific HC order staying her arrest.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar observed that any kind of action by any Executive Authority, including the Government, that is in breach or violation of a judicial order is non est, apart from being an act constituting contempt of Court.
The observation was passed on a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition pertaining to the liberty of a woman and her husband. The couple had solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites in December last year.
Subsequently, the woman's mother lodged an FIR on July 2, 2025, alleging offences under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the BNS.
Case title - Manish Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an application seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a man accused of making a Facebook post against "Nabi Paigamber" (the Prophet) of the Muslim community.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava also added that the inherent powers of the HC u/s 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and at the stage of summoning, the HC is not expected to hold a "mini-trial" to examine the defence of the accused.
Briefly put, the applicant-accused (Manish Tiwari) was charged under Sections 302 and 353(2) of the BNS on the allegations of making a post on Facebook against the Prophet of the Muslim community.
Case title - Ratvar Singh vs. State of U.P
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to issue necessary directions to ensure that instructions in bail and other criminal matters are sent to the High Court's Government Advocate via electronic mode, specifically email, rather than the usual manual method.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed thus, noting that under the current manual system, there are significant delays in receiving instructions from police stations in criminal matters.
The Court also pointed to Rule 5 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 which mandates the uploading of gang charts on ICJS and CCTNS; however, due to the lack of integration, these charts are not being uploaded.
Similarly, the Court referred to Rule 31(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Rules, 2024, which provides for the service of summons through electronic systems like ICJS or N-STEP. The Court observed that the summons could not be served properly because of the incomplete implementation of ICJS.
Rejecting the bail application of an accused involved in the Bareilly violence of September 2025, the Allahabad High Court has observed that the raising of the slogan "gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda" (the only punishment for disrespecting the Prophet is beheading) by a crowd constitutes a direct challenge to the authority of the law and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held that such slogans incite people to "armed rebellion" and are punishable under Section 152 BNS. The Single Judge opined that it is also against the basic tenets of Islam.
The Allahabad High Court today refused to quash multiple FIRs lodged against multiple persons accused of their involvement in the interstate trafficking of Codeine-based cough syrup, specifically 'Phensedyl'.
Dismissing a batch of 23 writ petitions, including that of the alleged Kingpin of the suspected Codeine Cough Syrup Racket, a Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev observed that the enormity of the entire matter needs to be investigated.
The Court also said that although Phensedyl might technically fall under the exceptions of a "manufactured drug" when used therapeutically, however, the enormity of the quantity seized and the manner of its transport, disguised as chips and namkeen, justified investigation.
Consequently, the Court ruled that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, as well as the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) were rightly invoked in the case.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Wednesday directed the immediate transfer of a criminal complaint case filed against the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and Raebareli MP, Rahul Gandhi, from the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Raebareli, to the Special MP/MLA Court in Lucknow.
A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh thus allowed a Transfer Application filed by BJP Worker, S. Vignesh Shishir (original complainant) under Section 447 BNSS.
Case title - Nitin Kumar Singh @ Nitin Kumar vs. State of UP and 4 Others
The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that a detailed Recovery Memo (Fard Baramadgi), prepared contemporaneously, containing the penal sections invoked and signed by the accused, satisfies the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India.
The Court held that where such a document exists, a technical omission of grounds in the formal Arrest Memo would not be fatal, as the same is substantial compliance with the requirement of communicating the arrest ground and will not render the custody illegal or the remand order perverse.
Case title - Teekam vs State of UP
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a second bail application, or successive bail applications, may be entertained by the HC on the basis of material collected during trial, even though such material was not available to the Sessions Court or the HC when the earlier bail application was rejected.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, however, clarified that in appropriate cases, the HC may direct the applicant-accused to file successive bail applications before the Sessions Court based on new material.
In essence, the Court clarified that while the established practice often requires an accused to approach the Sessions Court first, there is no statutory bar under Section 439 CrPC (or Section 483 BNSS) which prevents the HC from directly considering bail pleas based on new material.
Case title - Prashant Pal vs State of Uttar Pradesh
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the tendency of sexually exploiting women on the false promise of marriage and finally refusing to marry her is growing in society, which must be nipped in the bud.
The observation was made by a Bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava, who rejected the anticipatory bail application of an accused booked under various provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 69 (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.).
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.
Case Title: Ranganth Tulshiram Galande & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2025]
The Bombay High Court has held that extending judicial remand beyond the statutory period of 60 days under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused and without passing a reasoned order, is contrary to law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh was hearing a petition filed by two persons accused of offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The petitioners sought default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS after the Investigating Officer failed to file a charge sheet within the prescribed 60 days.
The Court held that Section 187(3) of BNSS is mandatory in nature, and any slightest departure from the statutory mandate has the impact of impairing the constitutional right of liberty of an individual, thereby creating an indefeasible right of the petitioners to claim default bail.
'Investigating Agency Has No Power To Debit Freeze Bank Account U/S 106 BNSS': Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur v. Union of India & Ors. [CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 321 OF 2025]
The Bombay High Court has held that an investigating agency has no authority to debit freeze or attach a bank account under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court observed that Section 106 merely empowers the police to seize property for the purpose of investigation, whereas attachment of proceeds of crime can be effected only under Section 107 upon an order of the Magistrate.
A division bench of Justices Anil L. Pansare and Raj D. Wakode was hearing a batch of petitions arising from cyber-fraud allegations, in which the petitioners' bank accounts had been debit-frozen on the basis that part of the fraudulent amounts had been credited to them.
Case title - Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
In a significant observation, the Bombay High Court has ruled that arrest is an 'individualized' act and therefore, the investigating agencies cannot justify the arrest of multiple suspects using 'collective' or 'group-based' reasons.
Interpreting the mandate of Section 35 BNSS, the Court held that reasons for arrest cannot be a "mechanical reproduction" of statutory clauses; instead, they must be specific 'conclusions' reached by the Police Officer based on the facts of each case.
A bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Shyam C Chandak thus declared the arrest of a corporate executive in a Deepfake-Advertisement FIR as ILLEGAL as it held that arrest can't be based on the mere fact that multiple persons are named together in the same FIR.
Case Title: Ayyappa Swami vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 343 of 2025)
A person feeding stray dogs in crucial spots of a housing society like the entry/exit points, places where school bus stops etc. which are not 'designated spots' if stopped from feeding by other society members, cannot then file a complaint under section 126 (wrongful restraint) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), held the Bombay High Court last week.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against one Ayyappa Swami, a resident of a society in Pune's Hinjewadi area, who was booked for allegedly restraining a group of young persons, who were feeding stray dogs at the society's entry/exit gate.
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.”
Case Title: In the matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others
The Chhattisgarh High Court has expressed dissatisfaction towards the steps taken by the State officials to curb hooliganism on the roads, which is caused primarily by reckless drivers performing and recording stunts, and others celebrating birthdays on the roads.
The Court, on October 13, had directed the Chief Secretary of State to file personal affidavit regarding two incidents reported in a Hindi daily—one, where the police was reported to have taken action against dangerous stunts being performed on Barsoor bridge, and the other concerning the wife of a close associate of the Health Minister, who was seen cutting her birthday cake on a car bonnet with fireworks being set off on the public road.
Case Title: Amit Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the authorities to take time-bound coercive action against Johar Chhattisgarh Party leader Amit Baghel, including his arrest, a thorough investigation and filing of a charge sheet in all pending FIRs registered against him for hate speech.
In doing so the court said that mere assertion of “State apathy” claiming that State authorities were acting arbitrarily, discriminately or with ulterior motive, without substantiating facts, is insufficient to justify judicial intervention.
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.
Title: Upendra Nath Dalai v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rapped a litigant for repeatedly filing petitions challenging certain provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, despite dismissal of his earlier pleas seeking similar reliefs.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela pulled up Upendra Nath Dalai, who filed a writ to declare the offences of waging war against the State and unlawful assembly from Sections 147 to 158 of BNS as ultra vires.
The High Court had in July dismissed his plea seeking abolition of the same provisions.
Case title: Shyamsundar Sharma v. ACIT/ Initiating Officer, Benami Prohibition Unit-2, Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court has held that the standard of 'reason to believe' prescribed under Section 24 of the Benami Act is higher than 'reasonable suspicion' under Section 35 of BNSS which empowers a police officer to arrest a person for alleged involvement in a cognizable offence.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed that the Benami Act makes Benami transactions a criminal offence. Therefore, one can take benefit of the definition of expression “reason to believe” as found in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
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.
Case title: Abdul Hamid v. State of Assam
The Gauhati High Court has held that when a DNA report conclusively rules out the accused as the biological father of the child born to the prosecutrix, the victim's testimony loses credibility.
A division bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Mitali Thakuria reiterated that the presumption under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act operates only after the prosecution establishes foundational facts.
The appeal under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) arose from a conviction under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellant raped a minor girl employed as a domestic help, after forcing her to watch pornographic material. Setting aside the conviction, the Court observed significant discrepancies between the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and her deposition before the trial court.
Case Title: Sameer Malik v. The Union of India
The Gauhati High Court held that even though GST investigations are revenue in nature, arrests made by GST officers must strictly comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Justice Pranjal Das opined that even with regard to arrest by revenue authorities under GST, the procedural compliance under Sections 35/47/48 B.N.S.S. are essential, failing which, the arrest may become bad in law.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case title: NAVDEEP MATHUR & ORS. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS
The Gujarat High Court has directed the state authorities to widely publicize prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS (earlier Section 144 CrPC)–prohibiting assembly of four or more persons in a specific area to prevent urgent nuisance or on apprehending danger–on "social media" to generate public awareness about the same.
In doing so the court observed that mere publication of such orders in the official gazette is not enough as the public at large has no access; whereas today in the era of social media platforms it would incumbent on the authorities to publish such orders by using these modes.
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.
Filing Of Final Report No Bar To Granting Anticipatory Bail: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Arif Ali Khan v. Union Territory through Police Station Safa Kadal
In a significant order clarifying the scope of anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023), the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that the filing of a final report (challan) before the competent court does not bar the grant of absolute anticipatory bail.
A bench of Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani observed that compelling an accused to seek regular bail after filing of the charge sheet would defeat the very object of pre-arrest protection guaranteed under Section 482 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 438 of the CrPC (now repealed).
The order was passed by Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani in an application filed by Arif Ali Khan, who had sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 39/2025, registered at Police Station Safa Kadal, Srinagar, for offences under Sections 308(4), 329(5), 351(2), and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Case Title: Sidharth Mahajan & Anr. v. UT of J&K & Anr.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that the provisions of Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 320 of the CrPC, do not restrict the inherent powers of the High Court to quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC).
The Court held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court remains intact, and can be invoked to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law, particularly where continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose.
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.”
Case Title: Harish Kumar Pathak v. The State of Jharkhand
The Jharkhand High Court has explained that Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)— which provides for anticipatory bail, is limited in scope, as opposed to Section 483, which provides for regular bail and is unlimited in scope, in as much as Section 482 does not envisage a revival of “reasons to believe” or apprehension of arrest once an earlier application of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
In this regard, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi stated,
“Upon making a close survey of the section 482 of the BNSS, there could be no slim doubt that the words and languages employed in the Section do not even remotely foreshadow that application for anticipatory bail, could be harvested as there could be no revival of “reasons to believe” of apprehension of arrest in the subsequent application when the earlier application has suffered rejection.
Cause Title: Shree Kumar Lakhotia v. State of Jharkhand
The Jharkhand High Court recently held that the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge and the inherent powers of the High Court operate concurrently, and invoking one does not bar recourse to the other. However, as a matter of judicial discipline, the High Court will ordinarily refrain from exercising its inherent powers when an equally efficacious remedy before the Sessions Judge is available.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the SDJM, Ramgarh's order refusing to discharge the petitioners in M.C.A. No. 2358 of 2024, arising from offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.
The Court referred to Sections 397, 399, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Sections 438, 440, 442 and 528 of the BNSS. It observed that, in light of these provisions and upon a reading of Section 397 of the Code, there is no prohibition on approaching the High Court directly.
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.”
Case Title: SRI ADRUSHYA KADESHWARA SWAMIJI AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) on Tuesday (November 25) set aside a prohibitory order dated November 04 passed against Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji, restraining him from entering the territorial limits of Dharwad district, for the period commencing from November 05 till January 03 next year.
The order was passed invoking Section 163(4) of the BNSS, 2023. The petitioner argued that the prohibitory order takes away the fundamental right of movement of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be passed without any rhyme or reason and the order suffers from non-application of mind. It was argued that the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
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".
Case Title: Somasundaram v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 641
The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order of a Magistrate Court, which had framed the charges in printed format with the name and other details of the accused inserted in writing.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that the framing of charges ought to have been done in writing, in accordance with Sections 263(1) and 269(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/ Sections 240(1) and 246(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court perused the order of charges and noted that the Magistrate had used the printed form in the Cr.P.C. and added details in writing.
Case Title: Rameshan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 670
The Kerala High Court has held that an accused person exempted from personal appearance may answer questions under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). either through a written statement or via video linkage.
Justice C S Dias, delivered the judgment and set aside a trial court order that had rejected the accused's plea to allow his counsel to respond on his behalf during the Section 351 examination.
The Court examined Section 351(5) BNSS, which explicitly allows a court to treat a written statement filed by the accused as sufficient compliance with the requirement of personal questioning. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka [(2000) 8 SCC 740] and Keya Mukherjee v. Magma Leasing Ltd. [(2008) 8 SCC 447], which laid down the principles for dispensing with physical presence during questioning under Section 313 CrPC in cases of genuine hardship.
Executive Magistrates Cannot Invoke S.130 BNSS In Purely Private Disputes: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M V Nithamol v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 672
The Kerala High Court has held that Executive Magistrates cannot invoke Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in matters arising from purely private disputes, such as allegations of cheating or breach of trust, unless there is a demonstrable threat to public peace or tranquillity.
Justice V G Arun delivered the judgment in a petition filed challenging the order and summons issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha under Sections 126 (Security for keeping peace in other cases), 130(Order to be made), and 132 (Summons or warrant in case of person not so present) of the BNSS.
Case Title: Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 674
The Kerala High Court recently held that the period during which an accused is released on interim bail cannot be included while calculating period of detention for the purpose of granting statutory bail.
Justice K. Babu observed that only the actual period of detention undergone can be considered, adding together continuous or broken periods of custody.
The petitioner was booked for offences under Sections 22(c), 8(c) and 27(a) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He approached the High Court seeking statutory bail by invoking Section 187 BNSS read with Section 36A(4) NDPS Act.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Gautam Navlakha v. NIA and the Kerala High Court decision in Sabu v. CBI [2020 (3) KLT 710] to decide whether broken period of detention can be computed together to decide whether statutory bail can be granted. It also looked into Section 187(3) of the BNSS (corresponding Section 167 CrPC).
Case Title: Varghese Kuruvila @ Sunny Kuruvilla v. Annie Varghese and Anr.
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the scheme of the provision under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita does not contemplate maintenance claim by a major daughter unless she is unable to maintain herself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath also noted that unlike in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act [HAMA] and the Muslim personal law, there is no provision in personal law applicable to Christians for maintaining an unmarried daughter who has attained majority.
Case Title: Farookh v Kayyakutty @ Kadeeja
The Kerala High Court has held that the right of a woman to claim maintenance from her son or daughter under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is independent of her husband's obligation to maintain her.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed,
“The fact that the husband of a woman has sufficient means and provides maintenance to her would not absolve the son of his independent statutory obligation under Section 144(1) (d) of BNSS (Section 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C.) to support his mother if she needs it.”
The Court noted that Section 144 of BNSS is a measure of social justice enacted to protect women, children and aged parents and falls within the constitutional scheme of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39.
Case Title: Rajeevan M. v. Rantin P. and Anr.
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a wife would not be disentitled from claiming maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC/ Section 144 BNSS even if she has a temporary job providing her some income, if she asserts that such income is insufficient.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath was considering petitions filed by a wife against her husband challenging the quantum of maintenance ordered to her two children and the rejection of her claim by the Family Court. The husband had also challenged the quantum awarded to the children.
Case Title: Vappinu v Fathima and connected case
The Kerala High Court has observed that a Muslim husband who has contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage cannot contend that he has no means to maintain his first wife.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, was delivering the judgment in the revision petitions filed by the husband challenging a Family Court order which granted maintenance to the first wife and dismissed the petition for maintenance against the son.
The Court has reiterated that the right to claim maintenance from husband conferred by Section 144 of BNSS is independent of the obligation of her son or daughter to maintain her under Section 144(1)(d) of BNSS.
Case Title: Adv. Sudheer P S v State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court has directed the State to frame guidelines on appointment of Public Prosecutors under Section 18(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M, issued the direction while considering a public interest litigation alleging that the State Government has failed to comply with directions issued by the Court in an earlier judgment.
'Arrest Illegal If Grounds Not Conveyed To Arrestee As Soon As Possible': Kerala High Court
Case Title: Vishnu N P v State of Kerala and connected cases
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 renders the arrest illegal, entitling the accused to be released in Bail.
Justice K. Babu made the observation while delivering a common order in four bail applications.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court recently entertained an anticipatory bail plea preferred by a lawyer, who had not first approached the Sessions Court, since no lawyer practicing therein was willing to accept his vakalath.
Justice K. Babu was considering a pre-arrest bail application of a lawyer practicing in Palakkad.
He is accused of the offences under Sections 78 [Stalking] and 79 [Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 119(a) and 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 [Punishment for atrocities against women].
Case Title: Adv. Sudheer P.S. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court was informed on Wednesday (17 December) that the circular issued regarding guidelines for the appointment of Public Prosecutors is not in accordance with the directions issued in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Others.
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, earlier this year in a suo motu proceedings initiated by the High Court had held that the process for appointing Public Prosecutors must strictly conform to Section 18 of BNSS, and that the opinion of the District Judge must be given primacy during the consultative process.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. were considering the writ petition, by a former public prosecutor alleging that the State has not framed the internal administrative guidelines mandated by the High Court in the afore case.
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.
Case Title: Mamta Gurjar v Pooja Kushwah [MCRC-26331-2025]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that the protection granted to police officers from prosecution, Section 197 CrPC or Section 218 of BNSS, does not exist in cases of abuse, false arrest, custodial violence or false registration, and is only applicable where there is a 'reasonable connection' with official duty.
The bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Gupta dismissed the petition filed by the police officers accused of obscene actions and words (Section 294), wrongful confinement (Section 342), voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 Part 1).
Further, the bench clarified that the protection granted to public servants under Section 218 of BNSS or Section 197 of CrPC is not absolute.
Case Title: Sohanlal v State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC-52351-2025]
Observing that the police personnel handling an alleged opium seizure case had conveniently forgotten to adhere to BNSS provisions on search and seizure, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the state's Principal Secretary to apprise on steps taken to implement the provisions.
In the present matter, the applicant, in custody since August 29, 2025, claimed that he was illegally escorted from a bus by unidentified men claiming to be police officers in civil dress. Later the same evening, he was shown to have been arrested with a commercial quantity of opium.
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.
Case Title: Venkateshwaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 339
The Madras High Court recently observed that in offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, it was not necessary to involve the victims of their parents. The court, however, added that impleading the victim, their family or the de facto complainant was essential in case of regular bail applications and for suspension of sentence.
Justice K Murali Shankar clarified that the victims in POCSO cases should not be directly involved in the proceedings, and any notice that should be served to them must be through the address provided by the State Counsel.
The court was dealing with three criminal appeals arising out of convictions and sentences imposed by special courts dealing with POCSO cases. In all three criminal appeals, the appellants had also filed applications for suspension of sentence under Section 430(2) of the BNSS.
Case Title: Ramasamy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court was recently surprised to note that the summons in a criminal case was served 12 years after the case was taken on file.
Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that the delay was attributable to both the police and the court registry. The court said that while the police failed to cause service of summons in time, the Judicial Magistrate also failed to verify whether the summons was issued, and did not call for an explanation for non-service.
Highlighting the provisions under Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order No. 715, Rule 29(11) of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Section 67 of the BNSS, the court held that the three provisions, together, form a complete procedural safeguard against delay in service of summons. The court noted that the provisions ensured that the service of summons is not reduced to a meaningless ritual.
Case Title: Federation of Bar Association v. Union of India and Others
Case No: WP 27880 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Thursday questioned whether the constitutional validity of a central legislation can be challenged on the ground that there was no proper deliberation or discussion in the Parliament, at the time of passing the law.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the new criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Case Title: Abdul Kadar and Others v. Commissioner of Police and Others
The Madras High Court has criticised the practice of police officers conducting a “current paper enquiry” without any statutory backing.
Justice B. Pugalendhi observed that such informal proceedings have no statutory recognition and the individuals could not be compelled to appear before the police unless a cognisable offence had been disclosed and recorded in accordance with Section 173 of BNSS.
The court reiterated that police could not conduct inquiries into disputes that were civil in nature unless some criminality was shown. The court added that allowing such practices would convert the police station into an informal forum for resolving private civil grievances.
Case Title: Zubaitha Begum v. The State and Others
The Madras High Court recently held that the high courts could not exercise their power under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant interim bail to a convict while their request for premature release was pending consideration before the appropriate government.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman held that once the sentencing part is over, the convict is not in the custody of the court and cannot be granted interim bail using the court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench added that the convicts would be entitled to suspension of sentence as provided under Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982.
The court observed that once an order of conviction and sentence attains finality, the accused is committed to prison and the court ceases to have the custody either actual or constructive over him. The court added that after conviction, when the sentence reaches finality and the accused is sent to jail to serve the sentence imposed on him, any release thereafter would be governed by Section 432 CrPC or Section 473 BNSS, dealing with the provisions regarding execution, suspension, remission and commutation of sentences.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
The Madras High Court has quashed the prohibitory order issued by the Madurai District Collector under Section 144 CrPC(Section 163 BNSS) in the Thiruparakundram region, following the clashes that broke out while implementing a court order passed yesterday, allowing devotees to go to the temple and light lamps at the stone pillar.
Justice GR Swaminathan quashed the order, observing that the same was promulgated only to circumvent the implementation of the court order. The court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Madurai city to give police protection to the devotees allowing them to light the lamps at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) situated at the lower hilltop on the Thiruparankundram hills.
Case Title: Pushpavalli @ Pushbam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
The Madras High Court recently remarked that the new criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, transformed the criminal process and made it more victim-centric, citizen-responsive and justice-oriented.
Justice L Victoria Gowri added that the new code emphasised timeliness, transparency, accountability, and proportionality. The court added that the BNSS codified timelines for investigating agencies, ensuring that the agencies could not keep the matters pending uncertainly, making victims languish without closure.
The court also added that the BNSS embodied a shift from the punitive colonial framework to a justice-centric democratic framework. The court remarked that timely investigation was the first guarantee of fairness to both the victim and accused and added that the investigating agencies should strictly adhere to the statutory timelines.
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.”
Case Title: Vicky Kumar @ Kashyap & Anr. v. State of Odisha
In a vital clarification to the new procedure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Orissa High Court has made it clear that the State Amendment, which increased the time-limit for filing of charge-sheet from 90 days to 120 days under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), is repealed along with the CrPC. Therefore, charge-sheet now has to be filed within 90 days as provided under Section 187(3)(i) of the BNSS, failing which the accused shall be entitled to be released on 'default bail'.
The Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra opined that the saving clause provided under Section 531 of the BNSS does not save the aforesaid State Amendment since it had become an essential part of the CrPC itself.
Case Title: Soumya Ranjan Panda v. State of Odisha
The Orissa High Court has held that mere registration of a criminal case against a person in a foreign jurisdiction shall not be a hindrance for proceeding against him in India on the basis of same set of facts or for offence arising out of same transaction.
While deciding a bail plea involving certain financial irregularities partly committed in Zambia, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held that registration of a criminal case or issue of warrant against the petitioner is not a bar to proceed against him under Indian Penal provisions as the same does not constitute 'double jeopardy'.
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.
Case title: Laxmi Devi v/s The State of Bihar and others
The Patna High Court has held that a complainant challenging an order summoning accused is an interlocutory order and a revision petition challenging such an order is barred under Section 438(2) BNSS.
For context Section 438(2) states that the powers of revision conferred by Section 438(1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The high court said such an interlocutory order does not amount to a final order with respect to the complainant.
The court however said that such a summoning order with respect to the accused amounts to an intermediate order, which he can challenge in a revision plea and if it is set aside by the high court the whole proceeding before the lower court would get terminated.
Case Title: Pushpraj Bajaj v. Union of India
The Patna High Court recently held that the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is mandatory, emphasizing that a pre-cognizance hearing constitutes an essential procedural safeguard for the accused. The Court further observed that any opportunity granted to the accused during the summoning stage cannot cure the defect arising from non-compliance with this requirement.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Arun Kumar Jha was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging an order of the Special PMLA Court that had taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, without giving him an opportunity of being heard.
Case title - Tirpurari Kumar Tiwari @ Manish Kashyap vs. The State of Bihar
The Patna High Court has granted anticipatory bail to YouTuber Manish Kashyap in connection with an FIR accusing him of publishing a video on 'X' of stones allegedly inserted between fish-plates on a railway track to tarnish the image of the Indian Railway.
A bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha granted him the relief, noting that he had posted the video as it is, after receiving it from social media, for the information of the Ministry of Railway.
Kashyap, booked under Sections 353, 125, 299, 61(2), 196, 3(5) BNS, along with Sections 66 and 66(F) IT Act, has been accused of uploading the video to tarnish the image of Indian Railway.
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.
Title: XXXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 414
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to accused mother-in-law of the deceased in an abetment to suicide case, observing that a woman's unnatural death shortly after marriage cannot be taken lightly. The deceased woman had been married in January 2025, and her sudden death within months raised serious concerns that warranted a thorough investigation, the Court noted.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil took serious noted of the fact that "the present case revolves around the unfortunate occurrence of an unnatural death of a young woman who had been married on 24.01.2025 and is alleged to have committed suicide under distressing circumstances. Such a factual matrix cannot be viewed in isolation, as the law itself attaches a presumption of law to unnatural deaths of this nature."
The bench further pointed that under Section 117 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA, 2023), when a woman dies an unnatural death within a short span after her marriage, particularly where allegations of cruelty or harassment by her husband or in-laws exist, a presumption arises against those accused of such conduct, shifting the initial burden of explanation upon them.
Punjab& Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Raising 'Pakistan Zindabad' Slogan
Title: Ameen v. State of Haryana
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of raising the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” during conflict between India and Pakistan in May, observing that the question of whether the offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 is made out would be a matter for trial.
Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj said, "The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court."
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.
Title: F v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that law of any civilized society is not definite, and it must change according to the demands and circumstances of the society.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a quashing petition filed by a rape accused under IPC and POCSO, in light of his marriage with the now-major victim.
It opined that crime of rape is the highest form of torture inflicted upon womanhood, and such cases should be handled by the Court with utmost sensitivity and high responsibility. However, at the same time, it also highlighted the victim's will and clear intention to lead a happy married life with the accused.
In this light, it was held, “This Court is also well aware that the proceedings arising out of the offences, such as rape, cannot be quashed by exercising its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, even if a compromise has taken place between the victim and the accused. However, at the same time, the Court cannot ignore or overlook the welfare so also the present and future life of the victim, who has entered into a registered marriage with the accused.”
Title: Dr. Avinash Sharma v State of Rajasthan
After a man booked under the NDPS Act alleged that the police officer was present at the site of recovery beforehand and had planted the drugs purportedly recovered from his possession, the Rajasthan High Court ordered preservation of officer's mobile tower location data under Section 94 BNSS.
In doing so, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed,
"No doubt, while passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of Call Data Record/tower location details under Section 94 of the BNSS would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to ensure a free and fair investigation/trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials."
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,
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)?"