Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: January 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.