Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Half-Yearly Digest: January - June, 2026
SUPREME COURT Supreme Court To Examine If UP Gangsters Act Is Repugnant To Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Case Details: SIRAJ AHMAD KHAN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.|Writ Petition (Criminal) No.452/2024 The Supreme Court recently asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to respond to the issue of repugnancy between various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters...
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court To Examine If UP Gangsters Act Is Repugnant To Section 111 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Case Details: SIRAJ AHMAD KHAN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.|Writ Petition (Criminal) No.452/2024
The Supreme Court recently asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to respond to the issue of repugnancy between various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (UP Gangster Act), and Section 111(organised crime) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a writ petition filed by various persons accused under the UP Gangster Act. On January 22, when the matter was heard for the first time, Senior Advocates Amit Anand Tiwari, Siddhartha Dave, Vinay Navare, Amit Kumar and Sanjai Kumar Pathak both raised the issue of repugnancy between the State Act and the central law.
These writ petitions have challenged Sections 3(penalty), 12(trial by special courts to have precedence) and 14(attachment of property), 15, (release of property), 16(inquiry into the character of acquisition of property by court), and 17(order after inquiry) of the UP Gangster Act and Rules 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3) and 40 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. In arguendo, it has also been argued that these provisions are violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Indian Constitution.
Cause Title: XXX VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 27) prescribed the procedure for Magistrates to order an investigation against a public servant under Section 175 (4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) when the alleged offense arises "in the course of the discharge of his official duties."
Unlike Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which does not require a Magistrate to seek a report from the superior officer when the accused is a public servant before directing an investigation, Section 175(4) of the BNSS provides such a procedure.
The Court noted that the provision uses the word 'may' and it has to be read as 'may' itself and not "shall".
Cause Title: XXX VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS
The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot entertain a complaint against a public servant under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) unless the complainant first complies with Section 175(3), which requires the Magistrate to be satisfied that the complainant has already approached the Superintendent of Police with a written complaint supported by an affidavit.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan considered the issue of whether Section 175(4) operates independently, allowing a Magistrate to act even on an oral complaint, or whether it is a procedural extension of Section 175(3), thereby importing the safeguards recognised in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.(2015), which mandate a written complaint accompanied by an affidavit.
The Court held that Section 175 BNSS sub-clause (4) is not a standalone provision and must be read harmoniously with preceding sub-clause (3). This means no direct complaint can be filed against a public servant before the magistrate under Section 175(4) to seek an investigation, unless the threshold requirement for a sworn affidavit supporting the complaint (as established in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.) under Section 175(3) is fulfilled.
Court's Permission Necessary For Further Investigation After Filing Final Report: Supreme Court
Cause Title: PRAMOD KUMAR & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS
The Supreme Court has held that the police can't proceed with further investigation on their own, and it is mandatory to obtain a leave of the court before doing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC/Section 193(9) of BNSS.
A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi allowed an appeal filed by the accused persons, setting aside a 2023 Allahabad High Court judgment that had permitted the continuation of a "further investigation" by police authorities in a decade-old rape case.
Case Title – State of Telangana v. Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud & Anr.
The Supreme Court recently upheld the guidelines framed by the Telangana High Court regulating registration of FIRs in cases arising out of social media posts and directing the police not to mechanically register FIRs over "harsh, offensive, or critical political speeches".
The High Court had held that in case of social media posts FIR for promotion of enmity, threat to public order, or sedition can be registered only if there exists a prima facie case.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a batch of pleas by the State of Telangana challenging the judgment of the High Court which had quashed three FIRs and laid down detailed guidelines for police and Magistrates while dealing with criminal cases arising out of social media posts.
By the impugned order, the Telangana High Court had quashed three FIRs registered against one Nalla Balu over his posts on X criticising the Congress party under Sections 192, 353(1)(b), 352, and 356 read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Cause Title: SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
The Supreme Court held that serving of notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is mandatory by the police to accused persons alleged to have committed an offence punishable up to seven years of imprisonment.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said that no arrest could be made for offences which are punishable with less than 7 years' imprisonment unless the mandatory requirement of serving a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS is complied with.
The Court was considering the seminal issue - Whether notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are to be mandatorily issued in all cases, qua an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years?.
Cause Title: SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
While affirming that issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is mandatory for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the Supreme Court clarified that an arrest under Section 35(6) can be made even after such notice only based on fresh materials that were not available to the police officer at the time the Section 35(3) notice was issued.
Also, the court issued a direction to the police officials that their “power of arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, pursuant to a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is not a matter of routine, but an exception, and the police officer is expected to be circumspect and slow in exercising the said power.”
Case Title – Subeesh P. S. v. Union of India
A practising lawyer has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which allow judicial officers to be appointed as Director of Prosecution, Deputy Director of Prosecution or Assistant Director of Prosecution.
The plea contends that the impugned provisions blur the constitutionally mandated separation between the judiciary and the executive, and erode prosecutorial autonomy.
CrPC Jurisprudence On Discharge & Framing Of Charges Continues Under BNSS: Supreme Court
Cause Title: DR. ANAND RAI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
The Supreme Court has observed that the substantive legal standards governing discharge and framing of charges at the pre-trial stage under the Code of Criminal Procedure continue unchanged under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS). However, the BNSS introduces regulatory discipline by prescribing sixty-day timelines for filing discharge applications and for courts to frame charges.
Case: M/s Everest Automobiles v. M/s Rajit Enterprises
The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether a complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[ Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita] without obtaining special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Everest Automobiles against M/s Rajit Enterprises, challenging a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated April 10, 2024.
Is Man Liable Under S.498A IPC For Cruelty To Live-In Partner? Supreme Court To Examine
Case: Lokesh B.H and others v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court on Thursday is set to examine a significant legal question: whether a man in a live-in relationship, described as a “relationship in the nature of marriage”, can be prosecuted for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or the corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 85).
A Bencsh comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing a Special Leave Petitioniled by Lokesh B.H. and others, challenging a November 18, 2025 judgment of the Karnataka High Court in criminal revision petitions.
Is There 'Deemed Sanction' To Prosecute If Decision Delayed? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench
Case: State v. M. Muneer Ahmed and another
The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether sanction to prosecute a public servant can be “deemed” to have been granted if the competent authority fails to take a decision within a stipulated time. The Court stayed a direction issued by the Madras High Court which had provided for such deemed sanction.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against a November 22, 2024 order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
The High Court had declined a plea for quashing of criminal proceedings but issued guidelines concerning grant of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 217 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Amicus Urges Supreme Court To Revise Draft Criminal Practice Rules In Light Of BNSS, BSA Changes
Court is set to consider a comprehensive compilation filed by Amicus Curiae Sidharth Luthra, seeking adoption of revised Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2026, in supersession of the 2021 framework.
The suo motu case, titled In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials, led to the 2021 judgment, where the Court framed Draft Rules of Criminal Practice and directed States and High Courts to implement them within six months.
With the coming into force of the new criminal codes, namely the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the amicus has urged the Court to recalibrate the 2021 Rules to align them with the new procedural and evidentiary architecture, particularly the technology-driven provisions introduced under the BNSS and BSA.
Case Title – Subeesh P. S. v. Union of India
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition which challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which allowed judicial officers to be appointed as Director of Prosecution, Deputy Director of Prosecution or Assistant Director of Prosecution.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that there was no legal foundation in the challenge and that it was misconceived.
Case Title: AZAD SINGH KATARIA Versus UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(Crl.) No. 461/2024
The Supreme Court on Friday orally commented that the undertaking given by the Union Government to reconsider the sedition law will not preclude the Parliament from enacting a similar provision.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition challenging the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023, particularly Section 152(acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India), which is questioned as a restoration of Section 124A(sedition) of the Indian Penal Code.
The Supreme Court on Friday orally commented that the 2013 judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, which mandated that the police must register FIR if the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, except in certain specified categories, has been abused a lot.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition challenging various provisions of the new criminal laws, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Case Title: ASHISH DAVE Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 19369/2025
The Supreme Court has observed that Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is intended to prevent the mechanical registration of FIRs based on vague, speculative or doubtful allegations, even where such allegations are framed as cognizable offences.
Highlighting the legislative shift from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regime, the Court explained that Section 173(3) BNSS introduces an additional procedural filter before registration of FIRs in certain categories of offences.
Cause Title: MD. MASHOOD & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF UP & ORS.
The Supreme Court has held that it is impermissible for the High Courts to dispose of the quashing petition without determining the veracity of the prayer for quashing a FIR.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria set aside the Allahabad High Court's order, which had mechanically disposed of the quashing petition by merely directing the police to follow the guidelines regarding an arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014), without determining the veracity of the prayer for quashing and deciding the petition on its merit.
“…once a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and/or Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is preferred, the same should be decided on merits, rather than dismissing the same as infructuous or by directing the Police to follow Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra).”, the court held.
Cause Title: SAJAL BOSE VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
The Supreme Court on Monday (April 6) held that where the prosecution fails to rebut credible and unimpeachable material which effectively undermines the factual foundation of the complaint, the Court would be justified in exercising its power to quash the proceedings.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria quashed the criminal proceedings against Appellants who were booked for assaulting an old man, noting that CCTV footage proved to be significant as it contradicts the complainant's version which was not countered by the prosecution.
Applying the law laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880, where the 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 Court observed that “the continuation of such proceedings, in face of total lack of credible material connecting them with the alleged offences, would amount to misuse of the criminal process.”
Cause Title : ACCAMMA SAM JACOB VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. ETC.
The Supreme Court has observed that High Courts, while exercising their inherent discretionary powers, cannot derail a police investigation directed by a Magistrate when the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence.
It held that at this stage, the Court must remain confined to the allegations in the complaint and the material placed by the complainant and cannot go beyond them to examine the defences put forward by the accused.
“…the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, should not travel beyond the allegations contained in the complaint and the material placed by the complainant by delving into the defences sought to be projected by the accused-respondents.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta while setting aside the Karnataka High Court's decision interfering with the ongoing investigation upon examining the defences put forth by the accused.
Cause Title: RAJEEV MEHTA @ RAJIV KISHOR KIRTILAL MEHTA VERSUS PARAM BIR SINGH
The Supreme Court has held that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation under Section 225 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before proceeding against an accused residing outside the territorial jurisdiction.
In other words, if a person is being accused in a criminal complaint and lives outside the jurisdictional area of the court, the Magistrate cannot immediately issue a summons without following the mandate of Section 225 BNSS, the Court held.
“…it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to press into service Section 225, upon satisfying himself that the accused person is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises jurisdiction.”, observed a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale, while setting aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment to the extend it upheld the magistrate's decision to proceed against the accused without following the mandate of Section 225.
Cause Title: NARAYAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
The Supreme Court has observed that for non-bailable offences punishable up to seven years, bail can be granted without imposing the conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal filed by an accused, who was granted bail in a case registered under the MP Excise Act (Act) for allegedly possessing illicit liquor.
Noting that the offence in question carries a maximum sentence of three years and is non-bailable, the Court set aside the order of the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had cancelled the Appellant's bail solely on the ground of alleged violation of conditions imposed under Section 480(3) of the BNSS.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 943/2021 (and connected cases)
The Supreme Court today held that a Judicial Magistrate does not require prior sanction under Section 196/197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing the registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
"The requirement of prior sanction under Section 196 and 197 CrPC (or corresponding provisions in the BNSS) operates at the stage of taking cognizance and does not extend to the pre-cognisance stage of registration of FIR or investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC/Section 175(3) BNSS", the Court said.
Cause Title: PARVINDER SINGH VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
In an important ruling, the Supreme Court has held that where cognizance of an alleged offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is taken by a magistrate after the commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), such cognizance would stand vitiated in the absence of compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which mandates granting the accused a prior hearing before taking cognizance, even if the complaint itself had been filed before the BNSS came into force.
A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's decision, which had affirmed the magistrate's order taking cognizance of an offence under the PMLA against the Appellant, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant-accused as mandated under first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS.
BNSS S.223(1) Proviso Mandatory; Cognizance Without Hearing Accused Void Ab Initio: Supreme Court
Cause Title: PARVINDER SINGH VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
The Supreme Court has held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which mandates an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance is taken in a complaint case, is a substantive safeguard flowing from the right to fair trial under Article 21, and non-compliance would render the cognizance order void ab initio. The Court further clarified that an accused need not demonstrate prejudice caused by such non-compliance, as the defect constitutes an illegality that vitiates the proceedings rather than a mere procedural irregularity.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Parvinder Singh against the Directorate of Enforcement in a PMLA case, setting aside the Uttarakhand High Court's judgment as well as the Special Court's order taking cognizance of the Enforcement Directorate's prosecution complaint.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case title - Shadab vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 9
The Allahabad High Court on Monday directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to issue a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the mandatory audio-video recording of searches and seizures as prescribed under Section 105 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
While granting bail to an accused in a theft case involving the alleged recovery of 40 motorcycles, a Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the failure to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 105 BNSS creates a doubt over the entire prosecution story.
The bench added that the law was enacted to protect innocent persons from wrongful implication and to ensure foolproof evidence for trial. It went a step further and observed that non-compliance with the provision by police officials may give rise to disciplinary proceedings.
Case title - Sanjay Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 15
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a criminal appeal can't be dismissed merely because of non-representation or default of the advocate for the accused and that in such circumstances, the court is obliged to appoint an amicus curiae and decide the matter on merits rather than dismissing it for non-representation.
A bench of Justice Abdul Shahid observed that the dismissal of a criminal appeal in default on account of the absence of counsel for the appellant-accused is against the mandate of Section 425 BNSS (Section 384 CrPC).
Case title - Kuldeep Verma vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 20
In an order passed today, the Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a teacher accused of maintaining a sexual relationship with his student for over a decade under the false promise of marriage.
A bench of Justice Avnish Saxena noted that since the accused was already married when he entered into a relationship with the victim, the alleged promise to marry her prima facie amounted to 'deceitful means' as contained under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means).
The bench thus dismissed his petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case title - Umme Farva vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 25
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has issued a strict mandamus to the police machinery in the state to mandatorily initiate prosecution against individuals/informants who lodge false or malicious First Information Reports (FIRs).
A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held that if an investigation reveals that an FIR was based on false information, the IO is “statutorily obligated” to file a formal complaint against the informant under Section 215(1)(a) BNSS (corresponding to Section 195(1)(a) CrPC).
The Court also warned that failure to do so would render the police officers liable for prosecution under Section 199(b) BNS (public servant disobeying direction of law) and departmental action.
Case title - Avneesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 34
The Allahabad High Court on Monday quashed criminal proceedings in a theft case where cognizance was taken by the Magistrate beyond the mandatory period prescribed under Section 468 CrPC [Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation].
The Court took strong exception to the explanation offered by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, who submitted that, as per the usual practice prevalent in all magisterial courts, no in-depth enquiry is made on police reports before taking cognizance.
Case title - Umang Rastogi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 40
In a significant order passed on Thursday, the Allahabad High Court has directed that any police officer in the state who fails to disclose specific "grounds of arrest" in the arrest memo shall be liable for departmental proceedings after being placed under suspension.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay observed that "empty compliance" of the law by merely filling out forms without substance amounts to a dereliction of duty.
"It is high time that the police officials, who are not complying the requirements of the arrest memo and violating the constitutional mandate provided under Article 22(1) of the constitution of India and further violating Section 50 and 50A Cr.P.C / 47, 48 and B.N.S.S should be sternly dealt with", the Court remarked in its order and directed that the order be communicated to the Uttar Pradesh's Director General of Police.
Case title - Irfan Solanki vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed an application filed by former Samajwadi Party MLA Irfan Solanki, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
A bench of Justice Samit Gopal rejected his plea under Section 528 BNSS as it took into account the fact that the trial is at an advanced stage and that prima facie material is available against him.
It may be noted that criminal proceedings are pending against Solanki before the Special Judge MP/MLA/Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar. An FIR was lodged in December 2022, accusing him and four others of being part of an active gang involved in breaches of law and order and in committing offences under the IPC for financial gain.
Case title - Vijendra Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Emphasizing that the procedural mandate for supplying police reports to an accused is not a mere formality but the "epitome of a fair trial", the Allahabad High Court recently quashed charges framed against an accused under the BNS and POCSO Act over non-compliance with Section 230 BNSS [Supply to accused of copy of police report and other documents].
A bench of Justice Avnish Saxena thus allowed a petition filed by an accused under Section 528 BNSS and observed that any trial proceeding conducted in contravention of Section 230 BNSS violates the cardinal principle of a free and fair trial.
Case Title: Kamalesh Agnihotri @ Kamal And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 66
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) today quashed criminal proceedings against the office bearers of a Resident Welfare Association (RWA) of a Lucknow-based society, initiated at the instance of a person claiming to be a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
With this, the High Court granted relief to the applicants [President, Secretary and Caretaker of the RWA] and quashed the criminal proceedings against them under Sections 308(2), 351(2), 352 BNS.
The Allahabad High Court today stayed the operation of an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Sambhal, directing the registration of an FIR against Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) Anuj Chaudhary and other police officials in connection with the Sambhal violence of November 2024.
A bench of Justice Samit Gopal passed this order on a petition moved by former Sambhal Circle Officer Anuj Chaudhary and former Sambhal Kotwali in-charge Anuj Tomar. The original complainant has been granted 14 days to file a counter to their petition. The stay order would remain in effect until then.
The High Court has, however, left the question of maintainability open to be considered after the filing of the counter-affidavit.
The order was passed after the Bench heard the submissions of the Government counsels [Additional Advocate General (AAG) Manish Goyal and GA AK Sand], who primarily argued that the Magistrate had exceeded the boundaries of the BNSS by ignoring mandatory safeguards under the law and that the police officials were not given any opportunity to explain the allegations against them before the Magistrate.
The Allahabad High Court recently recorded that it was 'shocked' to note that Lucknow's King George's Medical University (KGMU), the premier medical college of Uttar Pradesh, had refused admission to a critical patient at midnight, citing non-availability of beds. The victim, who was allegedly poisoned, died the next day for want of treatment.
BRIEFLY PUT, the Bench was hearing a Criminal Writ Petition filed by one Urmila in relation to an FIR lodged for an alleged Dowry Death case under Sections 80(2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Bench observed that as KGMU is the premier Medical College of the State functioning from the State Capital and it is shocking that a patient taken there at midnight for emergency treatment was returned on the ground of non-availability of beds.
The Bench observed that the authorities are under an obligation to ensure that FSL submits its report promptly, and that there is no basis for FSL to delay submission for months.
Case title - Kirti Verma vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 96
The Allahabad High Court has recently clarified that the directions for fresh recording of a statement under Section 183 BNSS before the Magistrate can be given only under exceptional circumstances.
"…the power is not a routine or an automatic power but is exercised by High Court or Supreme Court to prevent abuse of process, to secure ends of justice or rectify grave procedural irregularities that could lead to miscarriage of justice", a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Achal Sachdev remarked.
The Division Bench thus dismissed a writ petition filed by a Gang-rape victim who sought directions for re-recording her statements under section 183 BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 CrPC).
Case title - Sachin Arya @ Sachin Bhartiya And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97
The Allahabad High Court recently slammed the UP Police officials by observing that they have "no respect for law of the land" as they arrested a man, booked for offences punishable by less than seven years, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's Satendra Kumar Antil Guidelines 2026.
The Court also pulled up the state police officials for delaying the petitioner's release by approximately 20 hours despite the HC's explicit orders (on February 12) to release him 'forthwith'.
For context, in the Satendra Antil case, the Supreme Court recently held that no arrest could be made for offences which are punishable with less than 7 years' imprisonment unless the mandatory requirement of serving a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS is complied with.
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Special Court or Magistrate is not automatically bound to direct registration of an FIR on an application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS merely because the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X added that the Court has to first evaluate the allegations placed before it and thereafter, decide whether it is appropriate to direct investigation by the police or to proceed with the matter as a complaint case.
Case title - Sandeep Audichya vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 115
In a significant order passed recently, the Allahabad High Court noted that superior police officers sometimes resort to measures to 'browbeat' Magistrates when orders directing investigation of particularly 'uncomfortable' cases are passed by them.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi firmly advised Magistrates that if any such embarrassment or pressure is faced from any police officer, it is always open to them to make a contempt reference to the High Court.
The Court noted that in those cases, where the officer-in-charge of a police station refuses to record an information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence under Section 173 (4) BNSS, it is open to the informant to send substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned.
Case title - Veer Pal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 131
The Allahabad High Court recently cancelled the bail of a POCSO Accused who allegedly started harassing and threatening the minor victim after his release on bail, due to which she died by suicide.
Noting that prima facie the allegations under Section 108 BNS have been substantiated during the investigation, a bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh cancelled the bail of the accused, categorically observing that the accused deliberately breached the conditions of said bail and misused the liberty of bail.
The bench has directed him to surrender within two weeks.
Briefly put, the informant (father of the deceased girl), approached the High Court under Section 483(3) BNS seeking the cancellation of the bail granted to the accused on June 5, 2025.
Case title - Kishan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 144
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Sanju Bansal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, even though police-recorded confessional statements can't be part of the charge-sheets, it does not prevent the police from relying on such statements to proceed in an ongoing investigation.
Justice Shukla clarified that these observations do not mean that the police are barred from taking note of confessional statements recorded during the investigation phase.
"Confessional statement though inadmissible in evidence, recoveries or discovery of a new fact under Section 23 of the B.S.A., on the basis of such confessional statement and the part of the confessional statement, which leads to the discovery of a new fact is admissible in evidence", the bench noted.
Case title - Anju And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145
A single judge of the Allahabad High Court on March 20 observed that an individual who is already married and has a living spouse cannot legally be permitted to enter into a live-in relationship with a third person without seeking a divorce from the earlier spouse.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made this observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by a couple (both married to different partners) seeking mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful life and to provide protection.
The bench also granted immediate relief to the couple (an 18-year-old woman and a married man) and directed that, until further orders, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the criminal case registered under Section 87 of the BNS at Police Station Jaitipur in Shahjahanpur district.
Case title - Rakesh Kumar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 146
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a daughter-in-law is not legally obligated to maintain her parents-in-law under the statutory provision of Section 125 CrPC or Section 144 BNSS.
Observing that the right to claim maintenance under Section 144 BNSS is a statutory right and is confined only to the categories of persons expressly mentioned therein, a bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh noted that parents-in-law do not fall within the ambit of the said provision
The Court also stressed that a moral obligation, however compelling it may appear, cannot be enforced as a legal obligation in the absence of a statutory mandate.
Case title - Brajpal @ Birjju @ Bijendra and another vs State of U.P. and another along with connected cases 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 148
The Allahabad High Court has referred to a larger bench the question as to whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable after an accused is summoned in a complaint case involving a non-bailable offence.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla expressed disagreement with a 2025 coordinate bench ruling in Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 293, wherein it was held that anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS is not maintainable upon the mere issuance of a summons as there is no apprehension of arrest by the police without a warrant.
Case Title: Kallayya Pattadamath @ Akshay Pattadamath v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. .And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 158
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that when the accused is in judicial custody, he/she must be provided a legal counsel by the Trial Court for filing discharge application and if the accused refuses such counsel, then a hearing must be afforded on question of framing of issues with assistance of a legal counsel.
Referring to Sections 262 and 263 of BNSS, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra held
“it becomes crystal clear that, on the one hand, the statute gives an opportunity to the accused to move an application for discharge within 60 days of supply of copies of documents and the court has also been prescribed a time limit of 60 days for framing of charge, which commences from the date of the first hearing on charge.”
Case title - Arvind Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 161
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an earning mother need not be formally impleaded as a party in a maintenance plea filed by a child against her/his father.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh, however, directed that in such cases, the trial court must consider the financial capacity of both earning parents while determining the final maintenance amount based on the principle of shared parental responsibility.
The Court observed that proceedings under Section 144 BNSS are summary in nature, and there is no specific provision in the criminal procedure for impleading a party in the manner contemplated under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Case title: Abhishek Gond vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 174
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a party wishing to challenge an ex parte maintenance order passed under Section 144 BNSS/Section 125 CrPC can't directly file a criminal revision plea in the High Court.
A bench of Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay clarified that an aggrieved party must first approach the Family Court or Judicial Magistrate under Section 145 (2) BNSS/Section 126(2) CrPC to seek the recall of such an ex parte order.
The Court added that once an application is passed by the Judicial Magistrate or the concerned Judge, Family Court, under Section 126 (2) CrPC, a revision plea can be preferred before the HC under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Case title - Vikash Kumar vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 180
The Allahabad High Court has observed that offences of 'cheating' and 'criminal breach of trust' under IPC can be invoked simultaneously against an accused if the facts create doubt as to which offence is actually committed.
Consequently, the bench held so:
"From perusal of Section 221 CrPC (244 BNSS) and its illustration (a), it is clear, if single act or series of acts of such nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts may attract, then the accused may be charged having committed of all or any of such offences including Sections 420 IPC (318(4) BNS) and 406 IPC (316(2) BNS). Therefore, there is no bar for charging an accused under Section 420 IPC (318(4) BNS) and 406 IPC (316(2) BNS) where the fact creates doubt which offence is actually committed".
Case title - Sunny vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 185
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the only purpose of inquest report prepared under Section 194 BNSS is to make a prima facie opinion about the apparent cause of death and injuries and there is no statutory requirement to mention the name of accused.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted thus while rejecting the bail application of a murder accused.
Case Title: Indu Tandon v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 193
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings for dispossession under Section 164/165 BNSS cannot be initiated if party in actual possession of property.
Justice Brij Raj Singh held “The State Authority has to protect the parties but if actual possession is there with answering-opposite party nos.2 and 3, they cannot be dispossessed by proceeding under Sections 164/165 BNSS except in accordance with law by the order of Court.”
Case title - Damini State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 203
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that Gram Nyayalayas have the requisite jurisdiction to try and decide applications and cases relating to maintenance under Sections 125 to 128 CrPC as well as the corresponding Sections 144 to 147 BNSS.
A bench of Justice Abdul Shahid clarified this while allowing an application filed by a wife who sought a direction to the Gram Nyayalaya in Karhal, Mainpuri, to expeditiously decide her pending execution petition against her husband in a maintenance case.
Prior Notice By Police Not Necessary For Property Attachment U/S 106 BNSS: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Ashish Rawat v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 210
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that for attachment of property by the police under Section 106 of the BNSS, no prior notice is required to be served on the person. It distinguished Section 106 from Section 107 where it specifically provides for the magistrate to issue notice to the person whose property is sought to be attached under Section 107 of BNSS.
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held
“Nowhere in the statutory scheme there is any requirement that prior notice must be given to the owner of the property, or that a court order must be obtained before seizure like it is made for the attachment under Section 107 BNSS. The language of the provision is clear, unambiguous, and self-contained that the power to seize vests directly with the police officer, subject to the procedural safeguards envisaged in the statute itself. To interpret Section 106 BNSS as requiring prior intimation or a judicial order would affect the purpose behind the provision, which is protecting the property or getting it misused further for the similar offence.”
Case Title: S Vignesh Shishir v Rahul Gandhi and Others
In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has withheld its final order on a BJP worker's petition seeking the registration of an FIR against the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, in connection with claims that he is a British national.
In this case, it held that a Magistrate's order rejecting an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the registration of a case and for investigation is not an interlocutory order and is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC.
Relying on this, Justice Vidyarthi noted that in such revision proceedings, the prospective accused or the person suspected of having committed the crime is entitled to an opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken. Shishir's petition has, however, been filed under Section 528 BNSS [S. 482 CrPC].
"All of them submitted that there is no requirement of issuance of a notice to the proposed accused while deciding an application under Section 173(4) read with 175(3) BNSS and, therefore, no notice needs to be issued to the proposed accused-opposite party no.1 while deciding an application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the validity of an order rejecting an application under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) BNSS," the order records.
Case title - Simran Gupta Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 255
Dismissing a plea for FIR against LoP in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, over his alleged 'Fighting Indian State' remark, the Allahabad High Court today observed that in a parliamentary democracy, criticism of government action or policies is not only permitted but essential.
The Court stressed that criticism or ideological difference may not, by itself, constitute an offence, noting that an elected representative who declares a commitment to fight against a particular policy or ideology is distinct from a person inciting a rebellion.
The High Court emphasized that suspicion cannot be the foundation for criminal prosecution. The bench observed that the petitioner had completely failed to bring forth any material particulars or circumstances to show that the speech explicitly called for secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities as defined under Section 152 of the BNS.
Case title - Ravi Alias Ravindra Singh vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 263
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court recently detailed an exhaustive step-by-step procedure for conducting criminal trials in the absence of a proclaimed offender as per Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri termed the provision as a 'landmark' one for introducing the concept of 'Trial in Absentia' into the Indian criminal justice system
To ensure speedy justice, the Court further streamlined the procedure to prosecute such an absconder and to complete the trial as specified under Section 356 BNSS.
Case title - Santosh Gupta Thru. Her Nephew Nitin Gupta vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 268
The Uttar Pradesh Government recently assured the Allahabad High Court that a serious endeavour would be made to ensure that no arrest would be made in the state without giving the reasons and grounds for arrest to the arrestee.
Additional Advocate General Vinod Kumar Shahi further apprised the Court that he has already written to the State's Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police to strictly follow the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066.
A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava took both the submissions on record.
Case title - Huda Khanam vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 284
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that it cannot directly increase or decrease a maintenance amount while dealing with a plea under its revisional jurisdiction.
A bench of Justice Achal Sachdev observed that the proper remedy for the modification or alteration of maintenance allowance due to changed circumstances lies solely under Section 146 BNSS, which is pari materia with Section 127 CrPC, before the court that passed the original order.
The Court observed that while dealing with a revision plea, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or weigh changed circumstances afresh, as its role is strictly 'supervisory', which is confined to correcting any illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error.
Case Title - Shatrughan Kumar vs Narcotics Control Bureau Thru. Its Regional Office Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 287
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused must be heard before a special Court takes cognizance upon a 'complaint' made (after commencement of BNSS) by an authority under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh ruled thus while relying on the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, which mandates granting the accused a prior hearing before taking cognizance.
Accordingly, the Court set aside a cognizance-taking order of the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Lucknow, for failing to hear the accused at the pre-cognizance stage.
The Allahabad High Court today ordered the immediate release of a juvenile who was sent to jail on allegations of committing theft, calling his detention prima facie 'illegal'.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant also sought a personal affidavit from the concerned Judicial Magistrate seeking his explanation for approving the judicial custody without verifying the juvenile's age.
The Court noted that, apart from overlooking the age of the juvenile, who was below 17 years at the time of lodging of the FIR, the Magistrate also overlooked the fact that the offences [Sections 303 (3) BNS & 317 BNSS] carried a maximum punishment of 3 and 5 years, respectively.
Case: Chander Pal Singh v State of UP and others
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the state government to pay ₹25,000 per day to such citizens who are illegally detained beyond 24 hours under the preventive detention provisions of BNSS over alleged breach of peace.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi further directed that this compensation must be recovered directly from the salaries of the erring Magistrates or police officials.
Additionally, the bench mandated that the Magistrate and the police official, who are prima facie found responsible for the lapse, shall be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty in accordance with their relevant service Rules.
Case title - Mansoor Ahmad @ Lallu and another vs State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 321
Coming down heavily on the abuse of the preventive detention provision under the BNSS, the Allahabad High Court on Monday observed that magisterial powers granted to Police Commissioners in districts like Prayagraj and Ghaziabad are being “misused to the hilt”.
Terming the situation as "a shocking state of affairs", a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi directed the UP Government to pay ₹2,00,000 as compensation to a man who was illegally jailed for 8 days under the preventive detention provisions of the BNSS over an alleged breach of peace.
The bench further directed that this compensation amount be recovered directly from the salary of the erring Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) following a formal disciplinary inquiry.
Case title - Umesh Mali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others
Interpreting Section 483 (2) BNSS, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that a bail application in certain cases of rape involving minors can be heard even if the informant or complainant/victim is absent, provided they were duly informed about the proceedings [2026 LiveLaw (AB) 324].
The Court stressed that the statutory mandate is to provide the complainant an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter it is at the complainant's "sweet will" whether to appear before the Court at the time of hearing of the bail application.
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: P RASHIDULLA v. . THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Anr.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has emphasised that theft of property worth below ₹5,000 is a non-cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the police authorities cannot register an FIR with respect to the same without the Magistrate's prior permission.
In this regard, Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa stated,
“There is no doubt that the offence under Section 303(2) BNS is a non-cognizable offence. In such circumstances, the police shall follow procedure laid down under Section 174 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, which mandates the police to obtain appropriate direction from the concerned Magistrate, to proceed with investigation.”
Case Title: Kanduru Chinnappanna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has denied bail to a public servant booked in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) adulterated ghee case, for allegedly demanding commission from ghee suppliers, influencing tender processes and amassing disproportionate assets through suspected hawala routes.
The FIR was lodged over allegations on use of adulterated ghee for the preparation of laddus offered as prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple.
The matter pertains to a 2024 FIR registered for various offences under BNS Sections 274 (Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale), 275(Sale of noxious food or drink), 316(5)(Criminal breach of trust), 318(cheating), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) and 299(Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious belief) read with 49 (Punishment of abetment if act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment) and 3(5) (common intention) and provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act.
Case Title: SEELAM NAGAMUNI NAIDU and Ors v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that where neither party seeks to examine a witness whose evidence the Court considers necessary to arrive at a just decision, then the Court can invoke its power to recall or re-examine the witness at any stage of the trial, as contemplated under Section 311 of CrPC r/w Section 165 of Evidence Act, and such power can be exercised even after closure of evidence, including when the matter is reserved for judgment.
It further directed the DGP to issue instructions to all IOs dealing with cases under 302 IPC/103 BNS to ensure – (i) all material facts and circumstances leading to the incident and the events preceding the death are thoroughly verified and placed on record, (ii) timely collection marking of hospital intimations and out-post police intimations, alongwith collection of complete medical records.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday granted regular bail to a 60-year-old practising advocate and senior leader of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLP) accused of displaying banners where the National Emblem was morphed and the motto "Satyameva Jayate" was altered to "Satyameva Parajayate".
A bench of Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed that nothing remains to be seized from him and that no necessity was shown for his further custodial interrogation.
Justice Pratapa, upon considering the rival submissions, noted that at the stage of bail consideration, the Court is not required to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence or to determine conclusively whether the alleged acts satisfy the ingredients of Section 152 of BNS.
Case title - Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran vs. Union of India and others
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently took note of the common trend of the state police of opening Look Out Circulares (LOCs) in a 'mechanical' manner against persons implicated in cases under Section 498-A IPC (now Section 85 BNS).
The Court emphasized that such circulars, which curtail personal liberty, are meant for exceptional cases involving grave offences or threats to national security, not for routine disputes under Section 498-A IPC.
Case Title: P S Ganesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has closed an anticipatory bail petition moved by a judicial department employee accused of circulating anonymous and defamatory petition against district judiciary after the State submitted that the custodial interrogation was not required.
The State submitted that notice has been issued to de-facto complainant, the investigation is still in progress and since the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment below 7 years, the police would follow the procedure under Section 35(3) BNSS "as custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the present matter".
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Satish Sanjay Ramteke (Criminal Application 222 of 2026)
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has held that the service of summons through an electronic mode or even through a mobile phone would be legal as it is permitted under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke sitting at the Nagpur seat, quashed an order of a Special POCSO Court which had imposed costs on a constable in a child abuse case, for serving summons to prosecution witnesses through mobile phone, particularly through WhatsApp.
The Bombay High Court on Monday permitted UK-based Doctor and YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil to file an affidavit assuring that even if he is allowed to return to United Kingdom, he will continue co-operating with the ongoing investigations against him for his allegedly defamatory social media post against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders.
Single-judge Justice Ashwin Bhobe allowed Patil to file an affidavit to this effect and ordered the Mumbai Police to consider the request as expeditiously as possible.
This comes after Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher, representing Patil, pointed out before the court that his client has already been co-operating with the probe and was last summoned by the Mumbai Police on January 21. He submitted that the FIR lodged against Patil under section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) does not warrant any custodial interrogation and thus his client can be permitted to travel back to UK to resume his services there.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case Title: SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND ANR. VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [WPA(P)/153/2025]
The Calcutta High Court today heard an Interim Application moved by Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari in a pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea, seeking the immediate deployment of Central Forces in the violence-hit Beldanga area of Murshidabad district.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the district is sensitive to communal tensions and that riots have occurred there before. The members of the Hindu Community are being targeted, and an 'Ethnic Cleansing' is ongoing.
The petitioner submitted the statement of the Superintendent of Police, who stated that the violence was a pre-planned and calculated action. The violence also caused damage to the properties of the Indian Railways and Highways.
The petitioner, therefore, sought immediate deployment of the Central Forces, asserting that if the forces had been deployed earlier, the violence could have been minimised.
It was further argued that if the State fails to deploy the same, the Union should be directed to invoke powers under the National Investigation Agency Act. The petitioner also sought the invocation of prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNS (Section 144 CrPC) in the area.
Case Title: Arnab Paul v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Observing that an accused has no right of audience in matters concerning the manner or mode of investigation, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed applications seeking impleadment in a writ petition filed for investigation into alleged police inaction and collusion. The Court held that neither a complainant in a separate FIR nor persons who are merely prospective accused can insist on being added as parties at the investigation stage.
Justice Suvra Ghosh clarified that criminal law does not contemplate participation of an accused during investigation and that the choice of investigating agency or the manner of probe lies within the discretion of the Court. Interference at the behest of persons apprehending criminal action against them would run contrary to settled principles governing criminal procedure.
On the reliance placed on the BNSS, the Court clarified that Section 223(1) applies to complaints before a Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance and not to police investigations. Similarly, Section 175(3) does not confer any hearing right upon an accused. As such, the statutory provisions did not support the applicants' plea for impleadment.
Case Title: Abdul Rashid Khan v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the police to register an FIR or initiate criminal proceedings, particularly in cases arising out of private land or property disputes, holding that aggrieved persons must first avail statutory remedies provided under criminal law before invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Division Bench held that it is “trite” law that High Courts cannot compel the police to convert complaints into FIRs through writ jurisdiction. The Court relied extensively on statutory remedies under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, noting that a person aggrieved by refusal to register an FIR may approach the Superintendent of Police and thereafter the jurisdictional Magistrate under the prescribed procedure. It further observed that dispossession claims relating to immovable property can be addressed through a summary civil suit under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Case: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court held that a person cannot be taken into custody merely for alleged breach of an interim bond for good behaviour executed during preventive proceedings, clarifying that detention under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is permissible only when there is a breach of a final bond ordered after completion of the statutory inquiry. Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee made this observation while setting aside an order of an Executive Magistrate that had cancelled the petitioner's interim bond and directed his detention during the pendency of preventive proceedings.
Examining the statutory scheme, the High Court clarified that an interim bond under Section 135(3) BNSS is only a temporary measure imposed during the pendency of the inquiry and does not amount to a final order directing security for good behaviour. The Court observed that the power to detain a person under Section 141 arises only when a final order directing security has been passed under Section 136 BNSS and the Magistrate is satisfied that the bond has been violated. In the present case, no such final order had been passed and the inquiry itself had not been concluded.
Case: Kaushik Panja & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr
The Calcutta High Court has held that under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a Magistrate cannot direct the police to conduct an “inquiry” and must himself undertake such inquiry before ordering investigation.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee clarified that the statutory scheme mandates application of judicial mind, and the expression “inquiry” as defined under the BNSS refers to an exercise to be carried out by a Magistrate or Court, not by the police. Delegating this function to the police—particularly when they have already refused to register an FIR—would be contrary to legislative intent and amount to an abuse of process.
Case: Ajay Kumar Vs. The State of West Bengal and another
The Calcutta High Court, sitting at the Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench, has quashed criminal proceedings arising out of allegations of bigamy under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), after noting that the dispute between the parties had been fully settled and that one of the offences invoked could not have been prosecuted through a police case at all. Justice Jay Sengupta passed the order while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Ajay Kumar, against whom a case had been registered under Sections 82(2) and 85 of the BNS.
Case Title: Puja Hari v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order attaching properties belonging to a woman who was not even named as an accused in a criminal case, while issuing significant guidelines on the exercise of powers under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that indiscriminate use of the power to attach property under Section 107 BNSS, without strict adherence to statutory safeguards, could seriously imperil the constitutional right to property protected under Article 300A of the Constitution.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Title: JAYANT VATS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
The Delhi High Court has observed that refusing marriage citing kundli mismatch after establishing physical relations and repeated assurances of marriage attracts Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Section 69 BNS criminalizes sexual intercourse achieved through deceitful means.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to grant regular bail to a man accused of establishing sexual relations with a woman on the false promise of marriage and later refusing to marry her on the ground of non-matching of kundalis.
The Court said that repeated assurances regarding marriage, including representations that the horoscopes had already matched, followed by a subsequent refusal citing kundali mismatch, prima facie raised questions about the genuineness of the promise.
Case title: Neeraj Kumar v. State
The Delhi High Court has clarified that only the period during which an accused is in actual custody can be counted for the purpose of computing the maximum permissible period of police remand under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and that time spent on interim bail cannot be treated as custody.
Justice Prateek Jalan referred to Kerala High Court judgment in Fisal PJ v. State of Kerala (2025) where it was held that the period during which the accused person was released on temporary/interim bail should not be computed for the purpose of reckoning the period for statutory bail, as only the actual period of detention undergone by the accused need be counted for.
Case title: UDAY BHADORIYA v/s UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS
The Delhi High Court on Thursday (March 12) issued notice on a petition challenging orders imposing ban on public meetings inside Delhi University.
For context, on February 17, the proctor of the University had issued orders prohibiting for one month, public meetings, processions, demonstrations and protests of any kind on the University campus.
During the hearing today a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia were informed that a Section 144 CrPC order was also issued by police sub-division Civil Lines, which had been extended to April.
Before concluding the court also orally said that there are certain "pre-conditions" which are required to be met before passing an order under Section 163 BNSS which is equivalent to Section 144CrPC adding that language of Section 163BNSS and Section 144CrPC are similar and "pari-materia".
Case title: Dr Rita Bakshi v. Seema Bajaj & Anr.
The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger bench the issue relating to the stage of taking cognizance under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the timing of issuance of notice to the accused under its first proviso.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has framed the following questions for consideration by the larger bench:
(i) What is the stage at which a Magistrate can be said to have taken “cognizance” of an offence, in the context of a private complaint, under the provisions of BNSS, and whether the expression “while taking cognizance” as employed in Section 223(1) of the BNSS implies that the examination of the complainant and witnesses on oath is a step prior to taking of cognizance of offence?
(ii) At what stage is the Magistrate required to issue notice to the accused in compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS – whether (a) upon perusal of the complaint but prior to recording of the statement of the complainant and witnesses, if any, or (b) after recording such statements but before a formal decision on taking cognizance?
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Case title: Bhupendra Choudhury v/s Arun Choudhury
The Gauhati High Court has held that under the provisions of BNSS if the Magistrate feels that there is some substance in a criminal complaint then after examining the complainant and the witnesses on oath and before taking cognizance of the matter, the magistrate must give notice to the accused providing him an opportunity of hearing.
In doing so the court set aside notices issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morigaon holding that the Magistrate had acted contrary to the statutory scheme by issuing notices to accused without examining the complainants and witnesses on oath as per Section 223(1) BNSS, and remanded the matters for fresh consideration.
Case Title: PD Savera LLP v. Galacon Infrastructure and Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952, the Gauhati High Court has held that a Magistrate is not required to issue notice to the accused at the pre-cognizance stage in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.
The Court clarified that issuing such notice by invoking the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is legally unsustainable as the NI Act is a special enactment.
Case Title: Bhupendra Choudhury & Anr. v Arun Choudhury
The Gauhati High Court has held that under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), a Magistrate cannot issue notice to the accused before examining the complainant and witnesses on oath, and that doing so violates the statutory mandate.
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, presiding over the ruling, held, “issuance of notice to the accused prior to examination of the Complainant and the witnesses, if any, is not what is mandated under Section 223(1) of BNSS, 2023, rather what is mandated is notice to be issued to the Accused only after examination of the Complainant and the present witnesses, if any. However, this is only when the Magistrate does not want to exercise his powers under Section 226 of the BNSS, 2023.”
Case Title: Abhishek Kar v State of Assam
The Gauhati High Court has quashed the CID Cyber Case registered against influencer Abhishek Kar for linking Assamese women to black magic in a YouTube video.
Justice Pranjal Das held that the statement attributed to him does not fulfill the essential ingredients to invoke offences under Section 196 (Promoting enmity between different groups) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 67 (publishing obscene material) of the Information Technology Act, and Section 4 (identifying, calling, stigmatizing or defaming any person as a witch) of the Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act, 2015.
Case Title: Nawaz Shrif & Anr v State of Assam
The Gauhati High Court has held that strict compliance with Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, requiring written intimation of the grounds of arrest to the relatives of the accused, cannot be insisted upon in certain exceptional circumstances, and that the facts of the present case constitute such an exception.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, pressing over the case, observed, “At this stage, what is extremely important to notice is that the addresses of the relatives of the accused persons show that they are residents of Manipur. Judicial notice of the fact has to be taken that at the time of occurrence i.e. 18.08.2025, Manipur was still a highly disturbed area with sporadic incidents of ethnic violence and it could not have been very easy to serve such notices to the said persons within such a short time and also to obtain proof of service. The decision in Vihaan Kumar (supra) cannot be read as permitting of no exception regardless of the circumstances. The use of the term 'may' would prima facie support this view. Therefore, strict compliance with the provisions of Section 48 BNSS cannot be insisted upon in certain exceptional circumstances as the present one.”
Gauhati High Court Quashes Child Marriage, POCSO Case As Couple Married, Living Together With Child
Case Title: Sapiyel Hoque alias Sapial Hoque & Anr. v The State of Assam & Anr
The Gauhati High Court, applying Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, quashed criminal proceedings under the Child Marriage Act and the POCSO Act, holding that since the parties were married, living together, and had a minor child, continuation of the trial would be futile.
Justice Pranjal Das, pressing over the case, observed, “the objective reality that has emerged in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, also cannot be overlooked. The parties are married, living a peaceful conjugal life and they also have a minor child. In the said situation, allowing the trial to proceed might be an exercise in futility. Even otherwise, such a continuing prosecution could be detrimental to the interest of the child and the victim girl herself in the objective situation.”
Case Title: Sri Bappi Sarkar and 2 Ors. v. State of Assam
The Gauhati High Court has held that intimation of arrest sent to the family members of an arrestee via WhatsApp, without proof of actual service, does not amount to due compliance with Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, and that such non-compliance renders the arrest illegal, entitling the accused to bail.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, held, “A perusal of the notices under Section 48 available in the scanned TCR could go to show that they were prepared in the English language and sent to the relatives of the petitioners by way of WhatsApp messages, but there is no proof of service available. In the absence of actual service, it certainly cannot be held that there was due compliance with the provisions of Section 48 BNSS."
Case Title: Abdul Kalam v. The Union of India
The Gauhati High Court refused to grant bail to an NDPS accused who had claimed violation of arrest procedure under BNSS, after finding that his family who lived in Manipur were informed of the arrest via telephonic intimation and there was subsequent service of written notice under section 48 of BNSS.
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, noted that at the time of the accused's arrest in Guwahati, his wife was intimated about his arrest over the telephone call as she is a resident of a village in Manipur. The court further noted that a document to that effect was prepared which "mentioned that Grounds of Arrest of the Accused Applicant were explained by him to his wife and the contents were admitted by the Accused Applicant by putting his signature on that".
The court further noted that the receipt of the Written Notice containing details of Grounds of Arrest under Section 48 BNSS on a later date, though not at the time of his arrest, was also admitted by the counsel for the petitioner.
Bail Can Be Cancelled If Procured By Fraud Or Misrepresentation: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Prasun Banik v. The State of Assam and Anr.
The Gauhati High Court has held that bail granted to an accused person can be cancelled where it has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.
Justice Pranjal Das observed, “...a bail order can also be cancelled, if it was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. The aforesaid principle would be squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances that have emerged in the instant case as narrated and discussed above. Clearly, the respondent No.2/accused misrepresented facts amounting to fraud regarding his resignation in securing the bail order. Therefore, on the touchstone of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the bail granted to the accused deserves to be cancelled in exercise of both the inherent powers of this Court as well as the powers of bail cancellation available to this Court concurrently with that of the Sessions Court,” the Court added.
Thus, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 306 BNSS was cancelled and set aside, and the criminal petition was allowed.
Case Name: Mukesh Jalan v. State of Assam
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that mere non-payment arising out of contractual dealings, without prima facie material showing fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception, cannot be treated as offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, who observed,
“the dishonest intention and mens rea, prima facie, cannot be made out against the accused-applicant from the materials brought before this Court. To sustain a charge under Section 318 and Section 316 of BNS, 2023, there must be substantive evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very inception of the contract or transaction. Mere allegation of such intention will not hold legal force. Mere failure to discharge contractual obligation, i.e., failure in payment in time, by itself, will not constitute cheating. Court has to find reliable material to that effect. Similarly, a mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 316 of BNS without there being a clear case of entrustment in true sense,” the Court further opined.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case title: Vinodbhai Tilakdhari Tiwari v State Of Gujarat & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court has observed that remand of an accused already in custody beyond the 15-day period prescribed under first proviso to Section 346(2) BNSS is not illegal, and a habeas corpus will not lie unless the remand order is shown to be patently illegal, without jurisdiction or passed mechanically.
For context, Section 346 BNSS refers to power of the court to postpone or adjourn proceedings.
The court referred to difference in the terminology in Section 346(2) and the first proviso of section 346(2) and said that it gives a clue as to why the terminology used in the provision are different thereby making the difference in terminology relevant.
The court clarified that under BNSS, it is only when a person is arrested or is being detained for the first time when the investigation is incomplete and underway, the period of detention is explicitly stated as 24 hours and not more than 15 days at a time and on the whole for 60 or 90 days.
Gujarat High Court Stays FIRs Against Rolling Paper Traders Booked Following State Ban
Case Title: Ality Paper Industries Private Limited Through Sanil Prakash Mehta & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court in an interim order stayed investigation in FIRs registered against traders dealing in rolling paper brands like 'Stash Pro' and 'GoGo Papers', booked pursuant to the State Government's 2025 notification banning sale, distribution and movement of rolling paper, perfect roll and smoking cones.
The petitioners had challenged a Notification dated 16.12.2025 issued by the Principal Secretary, Home Department under Section 163 (Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger) of BNSS which prohibits the sale, distribution and movement of rolling paper.
The Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Section 163 BNSS empowers Executive Magistrate to issue such notifications whereas the notification was issued by the Secretary in the Home Department without any authority.
Case Title: Kartikbhai Jashubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court has held that although Section 250(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) prescribes a period of sixty days to file a discharge application after committal, the expiry of that period does not extinguish the accused's right to seek discharge where sufficient cause for delay is shown.
Section 250(1) of the BNSS allows an accused to file an application seeking discharge within 60 days from the date on which the case is committed to the Court of Session.
Justice P. M. Raval observed that limitation provisions regulate the procedure but do not eliminate the substantive defence available to an accused.
Case title: KUNAL RAMESHBHAI KALYANI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
The Gujarat High Court refused to quash a Secition 69 BNS FIR lodged against a man–stated to be permanent resident of Zambia, accused of having sexual intercourse with the complainant deceitfully over false promise of marriage.
In doing so the court rejected the accused's contention that his mother did not agree to the relationship observing that this was not a bonafide reason.
Case Title: Tofik Shaikh v State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition seeking immediate registration of an FIR in an alleged custodial death case of a man, while permitting the kin of the deceased to take recourse to the statutory remedies available to them under BNSS.
In doing so the court observed that while Supreme Court's Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh judgment mandates registration of an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed, it does not provide a separate mechanism if police refuses to lodge an FIR nor there is a mandate provided that on failure of lodging an FIR the next of kin can directly invoke Article 226 jurisdiction of the high court.
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Name: Abhishek v/s State of H.P.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to a petitioner accused under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court held that mere criticism of war, expression of dissent, or advocacy of peace on social media, without incitement to violence or public disorder, does not amount to sedition.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that:“Prima facie, they show that the petitioner chatted with someone, and both of them criticised the hostilities between India and Pakistan. They advocated that all people, irrespective of their religion, should stay together, and that the war serves no fruitful purpose.It is difficult to see how a desire to end the hostilities and a return to peace can amount to sedition.”
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
S. 223 BNSS | Pre-Cognizance Hearing Not Mandatory For S. 138 NI Act Proceedings: J&K&L High Court
Case-Title: Jasveer Singh and others vs Jugal Kishore
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ruling that the requirement of hearing the accused at the pre-cognisance stage under Section 223 BNSS stands dispensed with for cheque dishonour cases.
The Bench further noted that the initiation of a civil suit or parallel criminal proceedings by an accused after the filing of a cheque dishonour complaint cannot be used as a tool to 'derail' the statutory prosecution.
Case Title: Gurjit Singh v. Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu Zone
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) must be interpreted harmoniously with its provisos and does not mandate automatic release of an accused on bail upon completion of the statutory period of detention.
The Court observed that the statutory provision creates eligibility for consideration of bail once the threshold period is crossed, but the discretion of the Court to continue detention remains intact under the second proviso to Section 479 BNSS.
The Court clarified that the provision only makes an accused eligible to seek bail, while the Court retains discretion to continue detention for reasons to be recorded.
Case Title: Ajaz Ahmed v. UT of J&K through SHO Police Station Poonch & Superintendent, District Jail, Poonch.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a person who has been tendered pardon under Section 343 of BNSS, corresponding to Section 306 of the CrPC and examined as an approver, cannot be detained in custody in an absolute manner until the termination of trial. The Court clarified that the statutory purpose of custodial detention of an approver is to safeguard him and secure truthful testimony, not to punish him.
Case Title: Petitioners v. Union Territory Through Police Station Ram Munshi Bagh & Anr.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered against a group of accused, including a reputed Sufi singer in a parking dispute, observing that the investigation had been unnecessarily delayed due to the petitioners misreading an interim order as granting them absolute immunity from the course of law.
Examining the grounds raised by the petitioners, the Court found that none of the ingredients required to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS were fulfilled.
The Court observed that the petition appeared to be more an attempt to raise extraneous issues, and the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel appeared to obfuscate the real issue rather than assist in its determination.
Case Title: Mohd. Kabir v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that though preventive detention under the Public Safety Act can be invoked even when proceedings under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are ongoing, such detention must satisfy strict legal standards, failing which it would be rendered unlawful.
The Court emphasised that the existence of parallel preventive proceedings does not dilute the requirement of independent application of mind by the detaining authority.
Case Title: Bittu Ram v. UT of J&K & Ors.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a preventive detention order passed under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, observing that an ordinary citizen is not supposed to know the full form or meaning of the abbreviation 'BNSS' unless law enforcement agencies and the concerned magistrate disclose it.
The Court held that the detention order referring to proceedings under section 128 of 'BNSS' without spelling out the full form violated the petitioner's fundamental right to personal liberty and amounted to a blatant abuse of the process of law.
A Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti, while observing that “the very fact that within seven (7) days, four (4) times' proceedings under section 128 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 stood initiated would mean that none of the proceedings were taken to logical end and still the petitioner came to be clamped under preventive detention,” held that the preventive detention of the petitioner was a blatant abuse of process at the hands of the District Police complemented by the District Magistrate.
Case Title: Mohd. Kabir v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that where a person is already facing preventive proceedings under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the detaining authority must specifically record compelling reasons demonstrating why those proceedings are inadequate to prevent the individual from engaging in activities prejudicial to public order before invoking preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT-NDPS Act).
Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed that although preventive detention and security proceedings under Section 129 BNSS can legally coexist, the detaining authority is under an obligation to independently apply its mind and explain why the existing preventive mechanism has failed or is likely to fail. Absence of such satisfaction renders the detention vulnerable to judicial scrutiny.
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Title: Naveen Kedia v. State of Jharkhand
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a person who has been granted interim bail cannot be treated as being in “custody” for the purposes of seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), unless the accused is actually in judicial custody or has surrendered before the Court.
Clarifying the scope of Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), the Court held that an application for regular bail can be made only by a person who is already in custody, and unless a person is in custody, the question of entertaining a bail application under the said provision does not arise.
Case Title: Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
The Jharkhand High Court has held that inquiries into custodial deaths must mandatorily be conducted by Judicial Magistrates under Section 176(1-A) CrPC or Section 196(2) BNSS, and that inquiries by Executive Magistrates cannot operate as a substitute for such judicial inquiry.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a PIL seeking directions for judicial inquiry in every case of death, disappearance, or rape in police or judicial custody.
Case Title: Saida Khatoon & Ors. v. Smt. Vandana Dadel & Ors.
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered a judicial inquiry into allegations of custodial torture leading to the death of a man in Palamu district. The Court was hearing a contempt petition alleging violation of the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed that before initiating contempt proceedings, it must first determine whether any State functionary had violated the law laid down in D.K. Basu. Accordingly, the Bench directed the Principal District Judge, Palamu, to nominate a Judicial Magistrate to conduct an inquiry under Section 196(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The inquiry is to commence within fifteen days and a report is to be submitted within three months.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case title: ZEE ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (January 20) orally slammed Zee Enterprises and the Director of show 'Comedy Khiladigalu' for hurting religious sentiments by inappropriate depiction of Hindu Gods and Mythological Figures in a telecast.
Justice M Nagaprassana was dealing with the makers' plea to quash the complaint lodged by a viewer under Section 299 BNS, which pertains to offence of deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (February 24) ordered the release of a man accused of having sexual intercourse with a woman "deceitfully", remarking that Section 69 BNS cases were "mushrooming" before court wherein FIR was registered despite there being a consensual relationship.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plea challenges FIR registered under Section 69 (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means) BNS. He said that the petitioner and complainant met on the dating App 'Bumble' and had a consensual physical relationship wherein after one year the FIR is filed.
On the invocation of the provision in such cases leading to arrest the court orally said, "Its becoming rampant now".
Case title: X v/s State & Anr
Observing that the criminal justice system cannot be made a remedy for the emotional turmoil of failed relationships, the Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR U/s 69 and 115(2) of BNS arising from a live-in relationship in Ireland.
“….If every broken relationship were to be clothed in the garb of criminality, the Courts would transform into forums of personal vendetta, rather than forums of justice…”, the court opined while absolving the petitioner male from the continuing criminal prosecution.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna also observed that if the sexual intercourse did not stem from 'deceit from inception', it would be unjust to 'criminalise heartbreak'.
Case Title: Smt. Eman Abbas Topiwala vs. State of Karnataka
Last week, the Karnataka High Court raised eyebrows over an alleged discrepancy in the manner in which biological samples were taken from an accused in the 'Ellavoma' Farm Raid back in May 2025.
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna was hearing a quashing petition filed by one of the accused, a woman from Bengaluru, in the case pending before Special Court for NDPS Cases.
The charges levelled against the accused-petitioner include Sections 20(b), 22(a), and 27(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 292, 296, 3(5), and 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
“Without arrest, how did you conduct a medical examination. If you have arrested, what are the grounds of arrest? And if you have not arrested, how did you take blood samples? At least an arrest memo should be there. If they have taken her to custody and released her, there should be some procedure…”, the court orally observed referring to Section 51 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Case Title: M N Ramesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (March 27) expressed its disapproval at a magistrate's order which closed a private complaint, after noting that the police had instead of filing a report as called for by the magistrate court had gone ahead and filed a cheating FIR pursuant to which the complaint was closed.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna in his order noted that initially the complainant had approached the jurisdictional police for registration of the crime but the police did not register the case stating that the matter was purely civil in nature and rendered a non-cognizable report (NCR). Pursuant to this the complainant approached the Magistrate court in a private complaint under Section 223 BNSS.
The high court set aside the trial court order noting that there was "no order for reference for registration of a crime" by the magistrate and without such an order for reference under Section 175(3) the crime was registered and accepted by magistrate and the private complaint was itself closed.
Case Title: Mr. Yugadev R. v. State of Karnataka & Others
The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that Section 35(3) does not empower the Police to communicate by WhatsApp or Email the pre-arrest notice or copy of the FIR. The court clarified that the physical service of notice at the pre arrest stage is mandatory as intended by the legislature.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, relying on apex court decisions, held that electronic communication of notice under Section 35 BNSS [Section 41A of CrPC] is invalid as inferred from 'conscious omission' in the statute. The court iterated the apex court observation in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 114, that it cannot introduce a procedure into Section 35 which is not intended by the legislature.
Case Title: Smt. Eman Abbas Topiwala vs. State of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against a woman booked in an NDPS case concerning a raid conducted at a birthday party in Ellavoma Farm last May.
In doing so the court noted that the arrest of the petitioner was unlawful and thus conduct of medical exam under Section 51 BNSS was vitiated.
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna held that Section 51 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the medical examination of an accused, can only be invoked following a 'lawful arrest' that complies with all statutory safeguards.
Case title: Achal Singhal v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
Taking note of "mushrooming cases" invoking Section 69 (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc. ) BNS, the Karnataka High Court ordered the release of a man languishing in jail for the past 42 days in complaint alleging sexual intercourse over false promise of marriage.
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna, while staying further investigation against the accused man in the pending case, noted as below in the interim order:
“The litigation is with regard to misuse of Section 69 of the BNS and mushrooming of cases before this Court by the day and in all cases, where the relationship ends in a breakup, the man is in the lockup. Therefore, it is necessary for this Court to direct release of the petitioner forthwith.”
Case Title: Govinda v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused cannot seek reprieve of default bail by citing the 60-day investigation timeline mandated under Section 193(2) BNSS (applicable for offences like POCSO and Rape).
Terming the provision as 'victim-centric', not intended 'to furnish an escape route' for the accused, the Court underscored that Section187(3) BNSS [90-day timeline for investigation in offences punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more] remains the 'sole fountainhead' from which a right to default bail accrues.
Case Title: Mr. Birendra Prasad and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Another
Four persons accused of attempting to bribe Odisha Congress MLAs to vote in favour of a BJP candidate during the Rajya Sabha elections conducted in March, told the Karnataka High Court on Thursday (June 4) that the FIR would not survive because the allegations at their highest attracted only non-cognisable offences.
Advocate Angad Kamath appearing for the accused said that the police included Section 140(1) BNS [kidnapping with intent to murder or for ransom] to effect arrest and later deleted the said cognisable offence conveniently, Kamath said further. The petitioners had approached the high court seeking quashing of the FIR.
Before Justice M Nagaprasanna, Kamath submitted today that the subject matter in hand originally made out only non-cognisable offences, for which no FIR could have been lodged without prior permission from a magistrate.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Shereefa Munvara and Anr. v. Muhammed Kabeer
Relying on Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, the Kerala High Court recently held that a divorced Muslim woman can invoke Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 144 BNSS to claim maintenance from former husband even if he had discharged his obligations under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that when a Muslim divorced woman approaches the Family Court invoking Section 125 Cr.PC./Section 144 BNSS even after receiving benefits under the Muslim Women Protection Act, the Family Court cannot automatically dismiss the application but has to examine whether she is still able to support herself.
Case Title: XXX v. Gopalan K.T. and Anr.
The Kerala High Court recently held that a victim's appeal against acquittal under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita can be summarily dismissed when there is no prima facie material to show that victim has an arguable case.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the provision for summary dismissal of appeals provided under Section 425 would also apply to the appeals under Section 413.
Case Title: Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that a victim cannot file a second appeal against the acquittal of an accused by seeking special leave from the High Court as per Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu and Another, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked:
“It is evident from the above observations itself that once the appellate remedy is invoked by the victim, the same party cannot prefer another appeal as in the form of a second appeal. Hence, after filing an appeal under section 413 of the BNSS (or under the corresponding proviso of the Cr.P.C) before the Sessions Court, another appeal cannot be preferred by the same appellant under section 419(4) of the BNSS, against the order confirming the acquittal.”
Case Title: Soumya Gopal v State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court has held that a victim whether they are complainant or not has a statutory right of appeal against acquittal of accused without seeking leave of the High Court, however such appeal must be filed before the appropriate Court.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a woman's appeal under Section 413 BNSS challenging the acquittal of a man who was accused of offences under IPC Sections 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty)and 354D (Stalking).
The Court examined whether a victim who is the complainant in a private criminal complaint, can file an appeal against acquittal before the High Court without obtaining leave, or whether such an appeal must be filed before the Sessions Court.
It examined proviso to Section 413 BNSS, which is pari materia, to the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
The court held that complainants, whose status is of the victims in relation to cases instituted upon private complaints of all stature, have a remedy to file an appeal, in view of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 413 BNSS and the same is a statutory remedy, for which leave of the Court is not at all necessary.
Case Title: Athul P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that since Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that Section 438 CrPC regarding pre-arrest bail is not applicable to persons committing offences under the Act, the same can be said about its corresponding provision, Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed:
“As per Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply in relation to offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018. In the same phraseology, Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, also has no application in relation to offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018. Thus, grant of anticipatory bail is barred and the bar would apply when the prosecution materials prima facie show commission of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.”
Case Title: Pankaj Kumar v. The Station House Officer and Anr.
The Kerala High Court recently held that an accused arrested and released on transit bail cannot prefer an anticipatory bail plea, and he is only allowed to prefer a regular bail application before the jurisdiction court.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed a pre-arrest bail application of a Kashmiri man, who is arrayed as an accused in a crime registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Court then referred to Sections 35 and 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which respectively are the provisions dealing with arrest of a person without warrant and production of an arrested person before the Magistrate.
It was then noted that as per Section 187(2), when an accused is arrested without warrant and produced before a Magistrate that does not have jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial but considers that further detention is unnecessary, the accused may be forwarded to a Magistrate having jurisdiction.
Case Title: MR. Anagh v State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot return a private complaint merely because the complainant has not furnished the postal address of the accused.
Justice C S Dias was delivering the judgment in a criminal miscellaneous case.
The petitioner had filed a private complaint before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur, alleging that the third respondent had committed offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complaint arose out of allegedly defamatory and malicious posts and messages circulated through social media platforms, including WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram.
Petitioner in the present petition contended that neither the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), nor the BNS mandates disclosure of a postal address as a precondition for entertaining a complaint, particularly in cases involving online misconduct where the accused may operate anonymously.
The Court analysed the definition of “complaint” under Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, which expressly permits allegations against “some person, whether known or unknown.” The Court observed that if the statute recognises complaints against unknown persons, insisting on a postal address at the threshold would be legally incongruous.
Case Title: Ashique v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court recently held that when an accused, who is already under judicial custody, is arrested in relation to another case following a production warrant under Section 302 BNSS, there is no need to separately inform him of the grounds of arrest.
The reasoning of the Court was that as per Form 37, relating to the order requiring production of a person in prison as per Section 302, there is a specific direction to the officer-in-charge of the jail to inform accused of the contents of the order and to deliver him the attached copy and this amounts to sufficient communication.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, however, clarified that in such cases, it is mandatory to inform the relative of the accused.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Customs v. State of Kerala and Anr.
The Kerala High Court recently passed an order whereby it directed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to furnish the duty register of customs officers on duty at the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) to facilitate investigation into a crime relating to smuggling of methamphetamine from Muscat to India.
Justice C.S. Dias observed that in heinous offences under the NDPS Act, cooperation of State and its instrumentalities was necessary
The Court looked into the scope of Section 94 BNSS (Summons to produce document or other thing) and Section 67 NDPS Act (Power to call for information) by referring to the provisions and certain decisions of the High Court and the Apex Court.
It was opined:
“On a careful analysis of the scope and scheme of Section 94 BNSS, read with Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and its interpretations in the above decisions, it is trite that only a document or a thing, which is in the possession of a person from whom it is sought to be summoned, can be directed to be produced. The person cannot be expected to create a document or thing to be furnished to the Investigating Agency.”
Case Title: Vineesh v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a person can be prosecuted for illegal removal or transportation of river sand as per the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 in addition to the offence of theft under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked that his earlier decision in Mohammed Noufal v. State of Kerala was rendered without noticing the relevant provisions under the Sand Act and the General Clauses Act as well as the precedents rendered by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of the High Court.
Case Title: Sabu K.S. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that a person seeking to transfer a case from one Special Court to another Special Court can directly approach the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court.
Justice A. Badharudeen held:
“it is not safe to say that, when a person wants to transfer a case pending before the Special Court under the PC [Prevention of Corruption ]Act to the Special Court under the PML [Prevention of Money Laundering] Act, before approaching the High Court under Section 447 of BNSS the said person shall approach the Sessions Court first and get a rejection order there from, since Special Courts created by special statute exercising exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the offences under the special statute could not be roped into within the ambit of proviso to Section 447 of BNSS.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Nasir v State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC-59509-2025]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on January 14, granted bail to a man observing that the Investigating Agency had accused him of organized crime under Section 111(7) BNS without any material evidence terming it sheer misuse of powers.
the court noted that the State was unable to show any incriminating evidence to support the charges under Section 111(7) of BNS. The court noted that the applicant was merely an occupier of the house along with his family members.
The bench observed, "Undoubtedly, there are criminal antecedents showing as many as 32 cases registered against the present applicant, but in this case he has no role at all and this Court is surprised to see how the Investigation Agency misused its power by adding Section 111(7) of BNS against the person, infact who has no role in commission of the offence, registered against the co-accused persons".
Case Title: Shailendra Sharma v M/s Indus Residency Pvt Ltd
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that where offences are alleged to have been committed in or in relation to a court proceeding, the procedure prescribed under Sections 215 and 379 BNSS must be strictly followed, and the court concerned must first apply its mind before issuing any direction for the registration of an FIR by making a complaint in writing.
"A police officer cannot directly register a crime for offence under Section 215 BNSS once the offence is committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the Court. As per Section 379 BNSS, the Court has to cause preliminary enquiry and then can make a complaint in writing," the Court held.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR against a government school teacher for sharing an Urdu poem on WhatsApp status, observing that the act of sharing the poem without any additional commentary or any intention to incite would not constitute the offence under Section 353(2) of BNS for promoting enmity or public mischief.
The bench of Justice BP Sharma observed;
"the act of the petitioner in sharing a poetic recitation, without any additional commentary or intent to incite, cannot be construed as promoting enmity or public mischief because, the urdu poem written by Shoaib Kaini which was uploaded on the WhatsApp status (DP) by the petitioner and poem relates to the condition and sarcastic take on human rights, abuse of the women in Pakistan or any other country".
Multiple FIRs Alone Not Enough To Invoke 'Organised Crime' Charge Under BNS: MP High Court
Case Title: Hiralal v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRR-3881-2025
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has said mutiple cases against a person are alone not sufficient to invoke charge of organised crime under Section 111(4) BNS, as there "certain basic parameters" which have to be met before the offence can be invoked.
Justice Gajendra Singh was considering a case wherein the court had on an earlier occassion asked the State to explain as to how Section 111 (organised crime) applies in the matter.
The court noted that the State justified invocation of Section 111 on the ground that there were various cases registered against the petitioner at various police stations including one in Thane District, Maharashtra, a second in Cyberabad District, Telangana, and a third also in Telangana with the Cyber Crime Police and the fourth in Jalandhar District, Punjab.
Case Title: Vijay Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRR-1874-2026
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the counsel of a private person assisting the public prosecutor is permitted to submit written arguments but is restricted from making oral arguments or cross-examining the witnesses.
The bench noted that Section 248 of BNSS mandates that the prosecution be conducted by a public prosecutor and therefore, under Section 338(2), permission can be given to a private person only for submitting written arguments after evidence is closed.
Case Title: Vinay Pratap Singh v Pushpendra Singh, MCRC-17776-2026
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that while proviso to S.223 BNSS prescribes procedure followed by Magistrate before taking cognizance mandating accused be given an opportunity of hearing, however such an opportunity does not automatically translate into an obligation to furnish the entire evidence to the accused at threshold.
The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed;
"The proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS is intended to ensure that the accused is heard before cognizance is taken. However, such opportunity does not automatically translate into an obligation to supply entire evidence at the threshold stage, particularly when the proceedings are at the stage of consideration of cognizance".
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Buried Body Can't Be Exhumed Based On Sentiments Alone: Madras High Court Rejects Widow's Plea
Case Title: Elizabeth F. Santhi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
The Madras High Court recently rejected a woman's plea to exhume her deceased husband's body from the church cemetery.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that the wife had not shown any compelling reasons to exhume the body and as such the exhumation could not be ordered on mere sentiments.
The court noted that Section 196(4) of the BNSS gives power to the jurisdictional magistrate to cause disinterment/exhumation is he considers it expedient to discover the cause of the death. The court thus noted that the law permitted exhumation for forensic purpose. The court further noted that even as per Section 173 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, a buried body can be exhumed with the sanction of the Magistrate.
The court thus noted that the law was heavily against disturbing a body once buried. The court added that exhumation could be permitted only under two circumstances, to ascertain the cause of death or when the burial did not take place in a proper manner.
Case Title: Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
The Madras High Court recently observed that the police does not have power to summon or question a person without a registered case.
Justice Sunder Mohan thus set aside a notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police calling upon a journalist seeking explanation for an article published by him allegedly containing defamatory statement against the police. The judge noted that the Section only gave powers to the police to arrest a person without warrant and did not give powers to question a person without even registering a case.
Case Title: Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu
The Madras High Court recently observed that the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act would not come into play with respect to the acceptance of bond for appearance.
Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that Section 37 comes into play only when the liberty of a person from custody is sought and not when the accused is merely securing appearance pursuant to the summons.
The court noted that Section 88 of the CrPC/Section 91 of BNSS, empowered the court to take a bond for appearance of any person. The court noted that this power was discretionary, intended to secure attendance, and does not confer an enforceable right to the accused.
Case Title: Vivekanandan A v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
The Madras High Court has sought the response of the State Government on a plea challenging a notification issued by the Home Department, which mandated getting prior sanction before prosecuting police officials in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan has directed the Home (Police) Department and the Director General of Police to respond to the plea.
It may be noted that as per Section 218(2) BNSS, no court was to take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Under sub section (3), the state government was also given power to issue notifications making the prior sanction for such officers charged with maintenance of public order.
Thus, the plea seeks to declare the notification as unconstitutional, null, void, and ultra vires Section 218 of the BNSS, manifestly arbitrary under Article 14, and violative of the Procedure Established by Law under Article 21.
Case Title: K. Athinarayanan v. The State
The Madras High Court, on Friday, directed the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to register an FIR and investigate into the multi-crore cash for job scam involving Tamil Nadu Water Supplies Minister KN Nehru, his brothers and others.
While doing so the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan criticised the delay on the part of the State in proceeding with the investigation even after the Enforcement Directorate shared materials, which prima facie showed commission of an offence. The court noted that in cases involving such sensitive issues, the State should have acted diligently and registered a case without delay.
The court reiterated that in cases involving corruption, preliminary enquiry was not a sine qua non. The court also noted even as per Section 173(3) of the BNSS, the preliminary enquiry had to be completed within 14 days and could not be allowed to be converted into a mini-trial.
Madras High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Challenge To BNSS Provision On Pre-Cognizance Hearing
Case Title: Nakkheeran Gopal v. Union of India and Others
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the first proviso of Section 223 of the BNSS. As per the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, A magistrate cannot take cognisance of an offence without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
The plea, filed by Nakkheeran Gopal, an investigative journalist and owner of Nakkheeran Publications, states that the proviso is redundant, prolongs the trial, is repugnant to timely justice and ultra vires to the Constitution. The plea thus seeks to lay down correct trial procedure for the criminal defamation complaint, settling conflicts in Sections 210, 223, 225, and 227 of BNSS.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has admitted the plea and issued notice to the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Case Title: Nallathambi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
The Madras High Court has stayed a Government Order issued by the State of Tamil Nadu allowing police to exercise powers of the Judicial Magistrate.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman has stayed the Government Order issued by the Home (Courts – VIA) Department) on December 4, 2025, under Section 15 of the BNSS.
As per Section 15, the State Government may appoint, for such term as it may think fit, Executive Magistrates or any police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or equivalent, to be known as Special Executive Magistrates, for particular areas or for the performance of particular functions and confer on such Special Executive Magistrates such of the powers as are conferrable under this Sanhita on Executive Magistrates, as it may deem fit.
Trial Court Can't Order Impounding Of Passport As A Condition For Granting Bail: Madras High Court
Case Title: Raja v The Inspector of Police
The Madras High Court recently observed that the trial court does not have power to order impounding of passport as a condition for granting bail.
Justice P Dhanabal held that under Section 109 of the BNSS (Section 104 of the CrPC), the court had power to impound any document, but not the passport. The court observed that the power to impound passport was only with the passport authorities under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act.
Case Title: Anbu v The State of Tamilnadu
The Madras High Court recently held that the power of a trial court to recall a witness under Section 348 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 311 of the CrPC] cannot be used to give a second chance to a negligent litigant to improve their case at the end of the trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275]
Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the criminal trial was not a game of strategy between the prosecution and defence but a search for truth. The court added that the search for truth should be bound by fairness, legality, and procedural discipline. Thus, the court held that the prosecution could not be allowed to bring in something that it failed to establish during the normal course of evidence, unless such evidence is indispensable.
The court emphasized that the power to recall a witness should be exercised not merely because the evidence may be useful but because the absence of the evidence would render an unjust decision.
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
Case Name: Flamingstar Sohkhlet v/s State of Meghalaya
The Meghalaya High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, holding that offences involving death due to rash and negligent driving can't be quashed merely based on compromise with the deceased's legal heirs.
The Court emphasized that allowing such compromises would erode public confidence in the justice delivery system and reduce criminal law to a negotiable instrument in the hands of those with financial means.
The Court further clarified that: “Section 106 (1) of the BNS is not compoundable and as such, parties cannot settle the said offence through compromise either privately or with the permission of the court”.
Case Name: Shri Vicky Kharsati V/s State of Meghalaya
The Meghalaya High Court has acknowledged that the prevailing social realities in the State regarding adolescent consensual relationships often culminate in elopement, early marriage, or cohabitation, and must be recognised by society.
The Court noted that such cases frequently lead to the birth of children and have resulted in a growing number of petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, filed with the consent of both the victim and the accused.
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Criminal Breach Of Trust And Cheating Cannot Co-Exist On Same Facts: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Priyam Pratham Sabat v. State of Odisha
The Orissa High Court has reiterated that the offences of 'criminal breach of trust' and 'cheating' cannot co-exist in a given case based on same set of facts, since in the offence of cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false and misleading representation but in the offence of criminal breach of trust, there may not be any prior criminal intention, which begins with lawful entrustment and is later misappropriated.
An FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 316(5) (criminal breach of trust) and 318(4) (cheating) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on the allegation of misappropriation of an amount to the tune of Rs. 70 lakhs.
Taking note of the lucent rulings of the highest Court, Justice Pattanaik was of the view that the concerned Magistrate failed to discuss the materials available on record alongside the charge-sheet in order to come to a conclusion as to which of the two offences prima facie seems to have been committed by the petitioner. He found the cognizance order to be “cryptic”.
Case Title: Srinivaschary K.R. @ Srinivaschari K.R. @ K.R. Srinibash Acharya @ K.R.S Achary v. State of Odisha
The Orissa High Court has held that non-bailable warrant of arrest (NBW) cannot be issued against an accused before the scheduled date of appearance, upon issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Terming such dereliction as an “affront to personal liberty” of the accused, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held –
“…it seems that since the IO has not waited for the scheduled time, the NBWA issued against the petitioner is an affront to the personal liberty of the petitioner and the same appears to have no legal standing/sanction of law, inasmuch as NBWA should be the last resort in a criminal case when issuance of BW would not result in appearance/production of the petitioner before the Court concerned.”
Case Title: Matal @ Pramod Nayak @ Naik v. State of Odisha & tagged matters
The Orissa High Court has raised concerns about repeated cases of non-compliance of mandatory constitutional as well as procedural requirements, under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (akin to Section 50, CrPC) respectively, by police officers to provide grounds of arrest while arresting any person.
A Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy highlighted that such dereliction on the part of arresting officers is only beneficial to the hardened criminals, who raise such grounds for annulling their arrests.
Case Title: Arman Khan & Ors. v. State of Odisha
Case No: CRLMC No. 2549 of 2017
The Orissa High Court has held that while the police has power to issue notice to the accused to appear when required for investigation under Section 41A(1) CrPC/Section 35(3) BNSS , it however said that requiring the accused persons to appear every 15 days is not proper.
In order to examine the true purport and ambit of Section 41-A CrPC/ Section 35 BNSS, the Court placed reliance upon the landmark rulings of the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 751 and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 114.
Case Title: Lacha Madi v. State of Odisha
The Orissa High Court has recently clarified that the mandate of providing written grounds of arrest to the accused, which was made mandatory by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066, applies prospectively and thus, non-compliance thereof before the date of judgment does not render the arrest illegal per se.
The Court rejected the argument suggesting non-compliance of the statutory directive, and observed–
“The aforesaid arrest memo was not only signed by the arresting officer, but also by the arrestee and, therefore, the communication of grounds of arrest to the petitioner is in the line of Sec. 47 of BNSS.”
Case Title: Adikanda Swain & Anr. v. State of Orissa
The Orissa High Court has held that a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) can only be issued to persons accused of committing cognizable offences punishable with an imprisonment for less than seven years or which may extend up to seven years, and not more than that.
Clarifying the position of law and highlighting the error committed by not only the police but also the jurisdictional Magistrate, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed–
“…notice as contemplated U/S. 35(3) of the BNSS is meant for cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine subject to satisfaction of other grounds as enumerated in Sec. 35(1) of the BNSS and it is, therefore, considered that not only the police officer erred in applying the law, but also the learned SDJM passed order granting bail to the co-accused persons without adverting to the relevant provision of law.”
PATNA HIGH COURT
Title: Manju Devi and Ors v. State of Bihar and Anr.
The Patna High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute and held that in the absence of shared residence or meaningful interaction, allegations of cruelty against the in-laws become inherently improbable.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra was hearing a petition challenging an order of the trial court taking cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 85, 115(2), 118(1), and 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complaint alleged that the petitioners, who were relatives of the husband, had subjected the complainant to cruelty, including caste-based abuse and physical assault.
The Court noted that Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 requires the coexistence of two essential ingredients, namely, a legally valid marital relationship and cruelty arising out of such relationship. It held that neither of these ingredients was satisfied in the present case.
Patna High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Abusing PM Modi, His Mother At Political Rally
Case Title: Md. Rizvi @ Raja v. State of Bihar
The Patna High Court has granted bail to a man accused of using objectionable words against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his deceased mother during a political rally, which was later allegedly made viral on social media.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha was hearing the bail application filed in connection with Simri P.S. Case No. 243 of 2025 dated 28.08.2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 196, 296, 152, 353(2), 352, 356(1), 356(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Title: Dinesh Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that, "judicial error is not synonymous with judicial partiality and hence mere passing of an unfavourable order, or even an order subsequently set aside by a superior Court, does not ipso facto establish a foundation for bias or prejudice."
The High Court examined the scope of transfer powers under Section 408 CrPC / Section 448 BNSS, emphasizing that the transfer jurisdiction exists to serve the “ends of justice”, not litigant convenience and judicial error is not equivalent to judicial bias.
The Courts must guard against forum shopping and intimidation of judicial officers and unsubstantiated allegations against judges or opposing counsel strike at the majesty of law, it added.
Title: Vinod Kumar @ Akhtar v. State of Punjab and another
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man accused of making false allegations against a judicial officer, holding that the prosecution was initiated in violation of the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Sumeet Goel held that a Kalandra filed by a Station House Officer was not maintainable where the original complaint had been made to a superior police authority. While setting aside the proceedings, the Court also directed the Director General of Police, Punjab to conduct a statewide sensitisation programme for police officials to ensure strict compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case title: Abhishek Malhotra and another v/s State of Punjab and another
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday (April 1) asked two lawyers–who have filed a PIL challenging levy of Rs. 80 service charge for downloading FIR copy, to inform that since when is Punjab government charging the existing facilitation.
The court was hearing a PIL moved by two advocates–Abhishek Malhotra and Vasu Ranjan Shandilya, challenging introduction of alleged "illegal" service charge of Rs. 80 for downloading FIR copies from the PP Saanjh Portal/App, even for the informant/complainant/accused.
The PIL submits that the notification blatantly voiolates Section 173(2) BNSS (which mandates a free copy of FIR forthwith) and the binding directions of the Supreme Court in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India (2016) and Section 74 of BSA 2023 (FIR being a public document).
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Trial Can't Proceed Without Deciding Plea Of Unsoundness Of Mind Under BNSS: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Amit Rathor v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a trial court order directing continuation of trial merely based on medical report concluding the petitioner to be of sound mind, without any reasoned adjudication on the application filed under Section 368 BNSS.
Section 368 BNSS lays down the procedure for trial of a person of unsound mind.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that before proceedings with the trial, the trial court is mandated to decide the application under Section 368, BNSS. Hence, while setting aside the challenged order, the trial court was directed to pass a reasoned/speaking order on the application.
Title: Arvind Kumar v Smt. Namita
Rajasthan High Court has held that a husband can seek his estranged wife's employment records under Section 94 BNSS in order to oppose her maintenance claim, reiterating Supreme Court's 2020 judgment which held that either of the parties may seek production of relevant documents from the other party.
In doing so the court allowed a man's application under Section 94 BNSS before the trial court seeking disclosure of wife's earnings who was stated to be working as a nurse at a Private hospital, on the ground that the same were not disclosed by her in the maintenance proceedings.
Title: Prashant Kaushik & ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court has held that Magistrate cannot under Section 175(3) BNSS mechanically direct registration of FIR against public servants over acts committed in discharge of their official duties, without following the statutory safeguards provided under Section 223(2) BNSS.
In doing so the court underscored that Section 223(2) is a substantive safeguard so that criminal law is not used as a tool of vendetta.
Setting aside the Special Court's directions to register FIR against petitioner-police officials, Justice Farjand Ali held that the object of Section 223(2) BNSS was to balance the right of a complainant to seek redressal and the necessity to shield public servants from undue harassment.
Title: Jogendra Pal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Rajasthan High Court has held that under Section 225 BNSS before issuing process, a Magistrate can–without ordering an FIR, direct a police officer or any other person who he thinks fit to conduct an investigation on a complaint to decide if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.
The court observed that this investigation under Section 225 BNSS is "an extension of the Magistrate's inquiry" and not a substitute for police investigation under Section 175 BNSS, wherein the purpose of the former is to assist the Magistrate in concluding his inquiry before issuing process.
Title: Chhoti Devi v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court recently denied bail to a mother-in-law accused along with her son and husband of murdering her daughter-in-law (deceased) by strangulation.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu rejected the contention raised by the counsel that being a woman, the applicant deserved to be given the benefit of bail as per the provision under Section 480, BNSS.
The Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Rekha K.C. v Jyotibhai and Anr. and opined that merely if an accused was a lady, the same was not a reason to grant bail when the alleged offence against the concerned woman were serious in nature.
Title: Prashant Kaushik & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence against public servants or direct registration of FIR under Section 175 BNSS without first following the safeguards provided under Section 223 BNSS.
“The said provision marks a conscious and substantive departure from the earlier regime by introducing a safeguard at the pre-cognizance stage. The scheme of Section 223 BNSS clearly envisages that the process of taking cognizance is no longer an instantaneous act but a calibrated judicial exercise, wherein the Magistrate is required to apply his mind in a structured and informed manner…This statutory requirement is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard intended to protect public servants from frivolous, retaliatory, or vexatious prosecutions arising out of their official functions.”
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the operators of a hookah lounge booked for alleged offences under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 20(2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA).
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, while holding that the allegations in the complaint did not disclose a violation of the statutory provisions, allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the quashing of proceedings in a crime registered by the Narsingi Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.
"Consensual Relationship, No Intention To Prosecute": Telangana High Court Quashes FIR U/S 69 BNS
The Telangana High Court, in a recent judgement, has quashed criminal proceedings registered under Sections 69 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), observing that continuation of the case would amount to abuse of process of law where the de facto complainant stated that she did not intend to prosecute the accused and had amicably resolved the dispute.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada was dealing with a Criminal Petition filed by the accused seeking quashing of proceedings in a crime case registered at Zaheerabad Town Police Station, Sangareddy District.
Case Name: Rudrabatla Santhosh Kumar and Ors v The State of Telangana
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 13500 of 2025
The Telangana High Court has partly allowed a petition seeking quashing of proceedings in a case registered under Section 108 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that that continuation of proceedings against accused Nos.4 to 13 would amount to abuse of process of law, considering the victim's suicide note, that did not attribute any fault to them. The Court, however, refused to quash proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 3, who found direct mention in the suicide note.
The Court held that issues relating to the truth of the allegations and the proximity between the alleged act of abetment and the act of committing suicide are matters to be decided at trial. Hence, it was noted that the investigation was still in progress and that the prima facie case could not be discarded at the nascent stage.
Importantly, the Court engaged with the contention that mere registration of a crime could not amount to abetment of suicide. Hence, in reference to the accused No. 11, who was instrumental in lodging the complaint at the instigation of the first three accused, the Court held that “lodging of complaint filed by accused No. 11 would amount to initiating a legal proceeding, which cannot be said to be an act abetting the suicide of the victim”.
Case Title: Palivela Ravikumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr.
The Telangana High Court has held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the police registered a case under the BNS 2023, even though the alleged offence occurred prior to the enactment of the new criminal law framework.
The BNS came into force from July 1, 2024 replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court clarified that such an error does not vitiate the proceedings, as the trial court can examine the allegations and frame appropriate charges under the correct law.
Case Title: Konatham Dhilip Kumar @ Konatham Dileep Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two individuals accused of circulating “fake news” on social media, holding that mere forwarding of content, without the requisite intent, does not attract offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sujana observed:
“Even assuming for a moment that the petitioners had circulated or forwarded such content, the essential ingredients of Sections 353(1)(c) and 353(2) of BNS are not attracted… The alleged posts, even if assumed to be made by the petitioners, do not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 353 BNS. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law.”
TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Case title - Usha Rani Biswas on behalf of Madhabi Biswas vs. The State of Tripura
The Tripura High Court recently granted interim bail to an online content creator accused of making “derogatory remarks” against the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, in a Facebook reel.
The Court factored in that she has been in judicial custody for a considerable period and the investigation into the matter is already complete.
A bench of Justice S Datta Purkayastha directed the release of the accused, Madhabi Biswas, noting that the offences alleged against her under the BNS and the IT Act entail a punishment of less than seven years.
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Case No: CRLR No. 248 of 2026 With Bail Appl. No. 1 of 2026
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that while considering an application for suspension of sentence and bail in a statutory criminal appeal, the Appellate Court is required to examine the merits of the conviction instead of merely interpreting whether Section 430(1) of the BNSS is directory or mandatory.
The Court observed that once the appeal against conviction had been admitted, the Appellate Court ought to have examined whether the conviction was bad or not, and that failure to do so reflected non-application of judicial mind.