Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: November 2025
SUPREME COURT Supreme Court Directs Trial Courts To Pass Orders For Victim Compensation In Criminal Cases To Ensure Timely Disbursal 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...
SUPREME COURT
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.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
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.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
'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.
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
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
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.
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
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.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
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
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: 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: 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.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
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.
ORISSA HIGH COURT
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.
PATNA HIGH COURT
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
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: 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."