Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: February 2026
SUPREME COURT 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...
SUPREME COURT
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.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
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).
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
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.
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.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
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.
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.
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
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."
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.
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.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
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".
KERALA HIGH COURT
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.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
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.
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”.
ORISSA HIGH COURT
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.
PATNA HIGH COURT
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.
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.