Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: April 2026
SUPREME COURT S.528 BNSS | Criminal Proceedings Can Be Quashed When Reliable Material Disproves Allegations: Supreme Court 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...
SUPREME COURT
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.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
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.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
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.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
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.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
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.
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
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
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.