Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: December 2025
SUPREME COURT Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Invoking S.102 CrPC In Cases Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Supreme Court Cause Title: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VERSUS ANIL KUMAR DEY In an important ruling, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 10) ruled that the police/investigating agencies are empowered to freeze the bank account of a person under Section 102 Code of...
SUPREME COURT
Cause Title: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VERSUS ANIL KUMAR DEY
In an important ruling, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 10) ruled that the police/investigating agencies are empowered to freeze the bank account of a person under Section 102 Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita)., against whom a proceeding is initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”).
Dismissing a challenge raised by a public servant accused of amassing assets disproportionate to known sources of income, the Court clarified that the general seizure powers under the CrPC operate independently and are not displaced by the special attachment mechanism provided in the PC Act.
High Courts:
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case title - Vishwa Bandhu vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash an FIR noting that the Chargesheet and the cognizance order was not brought on record.
A Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha held that a plea under Section 528 BNSS is not maintainable if the applicant challenges only the FIR without placing the charge sheet and the order of cognizance on record.
The Court held so while relying on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in the case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by folk singer Neha Singh Rathore in connection with an FIR lodged against her for allegedly making objectionable posts on social media regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pahalgam terror attack.
A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh observed that the 'X' Posts/tweets posted by Rathore were against the Prime Minister of India and that the PM's name had been used in 'disrespectful manner' in the alleged posts.
Case title - Abhihita Misra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Homes Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Clarifying the procedure for obtaining a copy of First Information Report (FIR) in 'sensitive' cases where they are not uploaded online, the Allahabad High Court recently noted that in such cases, an "aggrieved person" can apply directly to the Superintendent of Police (SP) or Commissioner of Police, as the case maybe, seeking a copy of the FIR.
HC referred to the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in its 2016 verdict in Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India and Another, which bars police from uploading FIRs related to sexual offences, insurgency and terrorism on the website of the State governments.
Case title - Hindu Front For Justice Thru. National Convenor Sharad Chandra Srivastava And 8 Others Vs. Union Of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs,Govt Of India,New Delhi And 5 Others
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Thursday disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a review of the effectiveness of the current legal framework regarding the protection of Hindu deities and religious books from denigration.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed that while the making or amending of laws lies strictly within the domain of the Legislature, the implementation of existing laws falls within the domain of the Executive.
The petition specifically stated that the word 'Devta' included Lord Vishnu, Lord Ram, Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva, Lord Bramha, Maata Sita, Goddess Durga, Devi Radha and Brahmins. Furthermore, the plea also sought protection against the burning and insulting of 'Sacred Books', including the Ramcharitmanas, Manusmriti, Bhagvad Gita and Valmiki Ramayana.
Therefore, a direction was sought for the State to review the effectiveness of Sections 295, 295A, 298, 153A, 153B and 505 of the IPC (now corresponding to Sections 196, 298, 299, 300 and 302 BNS).
Case title - Ram Kewal Bharti @ Bablu And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
In a strongly worded order, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that the mere distribution of the Bible or the act of preaching a religion does not constitute an offence under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani also admonished the UP Police for what it termed as "bending backward" to arrest the accused immediately after the FIR was lodged, despite the absence of any victim coming in front at that stage to substantiate claims of forced conversion.
The Bench further asked how charges under Section 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) and Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation) BNS, could be sustained against the petitioners when they were potentially defending their property from intrusion.
In a move aimed at overhauling the coordination between the police and prosecution machinery across UP, the Director General (Prosecution) in Uttar Pradesh last month issued a strict circular directing all Prosecuting Officers to ensure that instructions from police stations reach trial courts without delay.
The directive was issued following an intervention by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) which took notice of the administrative lethargy in a case which resulted in the delaying of a surrender application of the accused.
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday issued show cause notices for civil contempt to the Superintendent of Police (Mau), the Station House Officer (Maduban) and the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Mau, for taking a woman into custody despite a specific HC order staying her arrest.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar observed that any kind of action by any Executive Authority, including the Government, that is in breach or violation of a judicial order is non est, apart from being an act constituting contempt of Court.
The observation was passed on a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition pertaining to the liberty of a woman and her husband. The couple had solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites in December last year.
Subsequently, the woman's mother lodged an FIR on July 2, 2025, alleging offences under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the BNS.
Case title - Manish Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an application seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a man accused of making a Facebook post against "Nabi Paigamber" (the Prophet) of the Muslim community.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava also added that the inherent powers of the HC u/s 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and at the stage of summoning, the HC is not expected to hold a "mini-trial" to examine the defence of the accused.
Briefly put, the applicant-accused (Manish Tiwari) was charged under Sections 302 and 353(2) of the BNS on the allegations of making a post on Facebook against the Prophet of the Muslim community.
Case title - Ratvar Singh vs. State of U.P
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to issue necessary directions to ensure that instructions in bail and other criminal matters are sent to the High Court's Government Advocate via electronic mode, specifically email, rather than the usual manual method.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed thus, noting that under the current manual system, there are significant delays in receiving instructions from police stations in criminal matters.
The Court also pointed to Rule 5 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 which mandates the uploading of gang charts on ICJS and CCTNS; however, due to the lack of integration, these charts are not being uploaded.
Similarly, the Court referred to Rule 31(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Rules, 2024, which provides for the service of summons through electronic systems like ICJS or N-STEP. The Court observed that the summons could not be served properly because of the incomplete implementation of ICJS.
Rejecting the bail application of an accused involved in the Bareilly violence of September 2025, the Allahabad High Court has observed that the raising of the slogan "gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda" (the only punishment for disrespecting the Prophet is beheading) by a crowd constitutes a direct challenge to the authority of the law and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held that such slogans incite people to "armed rebellion" and are punishable under Section 152 BNS. The Single Judge opined that it is also against the basic tenets of Islam.
The Allahabad High Court today refused to quash multiple FIRs lodged against multiple persons accused of their involvement in the interstate trafficking of Codeine-based cough syrup, specifically 'Phensedyl'.
Dismissing a batch of 23 writ petitions, including that of the alleged Kingpin of the suspected Codeine Cough Syrup Racket, a Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev observed that the enormity of the entire matter needs to be investigated.
The Court also said that although Phensedyl might technically fall under the exceptions of a "manufactured drug" when used therapeutically, however, the enormity of the quantity seized and the manner of its transport, disguised as chips and namkeen, justified investigation.
Consequently, the Court ruled that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, as well as the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) were rightly invoked in the case.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Wednesday directed the immediate transfer of a criminal complaint case filed against the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and Raebareli MP, Rahul Gandhi, from the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Raebareli, to the Special MP/MLA Court in Lucknow.
A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh thus allowed a Transfer Application filed by BJP Worker, S. Vignesh Shishir (original complainant) under Section 447 BNSS.
Case title - Nitin Kumar Singh @ Nitin Kumar vs. State of UP and 4 Others
The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that a detailed Recovery Memo (Fard Baramadgi), prepared contemporaneously, containing the penal sections invoked and signed by the accused, satisfies the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India.
The Court held that where such a document exists, a technical omission of grounds in the formal Arrest Memo would not be fatal, as the same is substantial compliance with the requirement of communicating the arrest ground and will not render the custody illegal or the remand order perverse.
Case title - Teekam vs State of UP
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a second bail application, or successive bail applications, may be entertained by the HC on the basis of material collected during trial, even though such material was not available to the Sessions Court or the HC when the earlier bail application was rejected.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, however, clarified that in appropriate cases, the HC may direct the applicant-accused to file successive bail applications before the Sessions Court based on new material.
In essence, the Court clarified that while the established practice often requires an accused to approach the Sessions Court first, there is no statutory bar under Section 439 CrPC (or Section 483 BNSS) which prevents the HC from directly considering bail pleas based on new material.
Case title - Prashant Pal vs State of Uttar Pradesh
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the tendency of sexually exploiting women on the false promise of marriage and finally refusing to marry her is growing in society, which must be nipped in the bud.
The observation was made by a Bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava, who rejected the anticipatory bail application of an accused booked under various provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 69 (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.).
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case title - Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
In a significant observation, the Bombay High Court has ruled that arrest is an 'individualized' act and therefore, the investigating agencies cannot justify the arrest of multiple suspects using 'collective' or 'group-based' reasons.
Interpreting the mandate of Section 35 BNSS, the Court held that reasons for arrest cannot be a "mechanical reproduction" of statutory clauses; instead, they must be specific 'conclusions' reached by the Police Officer based on the facts of each case.
A bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Shyam C Chandak thus declared the arrest of a corporate executive in a Deepfake-Advertisement FIR as ILLEGAL as it held that arrest can't be based on the mere fact that multiple persons are named together in the same FIR.
Case Title: Ayyappa Swami vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 343 of 2025)
A person feeding stray dogs in crucial spots of a housing society like the entry/exit points, places where school bus stops etc. which are not 'designated spots' if stopped from feeding by other society members, cannot then file a complaint under section 126 (wrongful restraint) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), held the Bombay High Court last week.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against one Ayyappa Swami, a resident of a society in Pune's Hinjewadi area, who was booked for allegedly restraining a group of young persons, who were feeding stray dogs at the society's entry/exit gate.
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sameer Malik v. The Union of India
The Gauhati High Court held that even though GST investigations are revenue in nature, arrests made by GST officers must strictly comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Justice Pranjal Das opined that even with regard to arrest by revenue authorities under GST, the procedural compliance under Sections 35/47/48 B.N.S.S. are essential, failing which, the arrest may become bad in law.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case title: NAVDEEP MATHUR & ORS. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS
The Gujarat High Court has directed the state authorities to widely publicize prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS (earlier Section 144 CrPC)–prohibiting assembly of four or more persons in a specific area to prevent urgent nuisance or on apprehending danger–on "social media" to generate public awareness about the same.
In doing so the court observed that mere publication of such orders in the official gazette is not enough as the public at large has no access; whereas today in the era of social media platforms it would incumbent on the authorities to publish such orders by using these modes.
KERALA HIGH COURT
'Arrest Illegal If Grounds Not Conveyed To Arrestee As Soon As Possible': Kerala High Court
Case Title: Vishnu N P v State of Kerala and connected cases
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 renders the arrest illegal, entitling the accused to be released in Bail.
Justice K. Babu made the observation while delivering a common order in four bail applications.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court recently entertained an anticipatory bail plea preferred by a lawyer, who had not first approached the Sessions Court, since no lawyer practicing therein was willing to accept his vakalath.
Justice K. Babu was considering a pre-arrest bail application of a lawyer practicing in Palakkad.
He is accused of the offences under Sections 78 [Stalking] and 79 [Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 119(a) and 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 [Punishment for atrocities against women].
Case Title: Adv. Sudheer P.S. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court was informed on Wednesday (17 December) that the circular issued regarding guidelines for the appointment of Public Prosecutors is not in accordance with the directions issued in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Others.
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, earlier this year in a suo motu proceedings initiated by the High Court had held that the process for appointing Public Prosecutors must strictly conform to Section 18 of BNSS, and that the opinion of the District Judge must be given primacy during the consultative process.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. were considering the writ petition, by a former public prosecutor alleging that the State has not framed the internal administrative guidelines mandated by the High Court in the afore case.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Mamta Gurjar v Pooja Kushwah [MCRC-26331-2025]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that the protection granted to police officers from prosecution, Section 197 CrPC or Section 218 of BNSS, does not exist in cases of abuse, false arrest, custodial violence or false registration, and is only applicable where there is a 'reasonable connection' with official duty.
The bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Gupta dismissed the petition filed by the police officers accused of obscene actions and words (Section 294), wrongful confinement (Section 342), voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 Part 1).
Further, the bench clarified that the protection granted to public servants under Section 218 of BNSS or Section 197 of CrPC is not absolute.
Case Title: Sohanlal v State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC-52351-2025]
Observing that the police personnel handling an alleged opium seizure case had conveniently forgotten to adhere to BNSS provisions on search and seizure, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the state's Principal Secretary to apprise on steps taken to implement the provisions.
In the present matter, the applicant, in custody since August 29, 2025, claimed that he was illegally escorted from a bus by unidentified men claiming to be police officers in civil dress. Later the same evening, he was shown to have been arrested with a commercial quantity of opium.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
The Madras High Court has quashed the prohibitory order issued by the Madurai District Collector under Section 144 CrPC(Section 163 BNSS) in the Thiruparakundram region, following the clashes that broke out while implementing a court order passed yesterday, allowing devotees to go to the temple and light lamps at the stone pillar.
Justice GR Swaminathan quashed the order, observing that the same was promulgated only to circumvent the implementation of the court order. The court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Madurai city to give police protection to the devotees allowing them to light the lamps at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) situated at the lower hilltop on the Thiruparankundram hills.
Case Title: Pushpavalli @ Pushbam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
The Madras High Court recently remarked that the new criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, transformed the criminal process and made it more victim-centric, citizen-responsive and justice-oriented.
Justice L Victoria Gowri added that the new code emphasised timeliness, transparency, accountability, and proportionality. The court added that the BNSS codified timelines for investigating agencies, ensuring that the agencies could not keep the matters pending uncertainly, making victims languish without closure.
The court also added that the BNSS embodied a shift from the punitive colonial framework to a justice-centric democratic framework. The court remarked that timely investigation was the first guarantee of fairness to both the victim and accused and added that the investigating agencies should strictly adhere to the statutory timelines.
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Soumya Ranjan Panda v. State of Odisha
The Orissa High Court has held that mere registration of a criminal case against a person in a foreign jurisdiction shall not be a hindrance for proceeding against him in India on the basis of same set of facts or for offence arising out of same transaction.
While deciding a bail plea involving certain financial irregularities partly committed in Zambia, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held that registration of a criminal case or issue of warrant against the petitioner is not a bar to proceed against him under Indian Penal provisions as the same does not constitute 'double jeopardy'.