Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: June 2026
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Allahabad High Court Seeks Judicial Officer's Explanation For Remanding 'Juvenile' To Jail, Summons Arresting Cops The Allahabad High Court today ordered the immediate release of a juvenile who was sent to jail on allegations of committing theft, calling his detention prima facie 'illegal'. A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Divesh Chandra...
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
The Allahabad High Court today ordered the immediate release of a juvenile who was sent to jail on allegations of committing theft, calling his detention prima facie 'illegal'.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant also sought a personal affidavit from the concerned Judicial Magistrate seeking his explanation for approving the judicial custody without verifying the juvenile's age.
The Court noted that, apart from overlooking the age of the juvenile, who was below 17 years at the time of lodging of the FIR, the Magistrate also overlooked the fact that the offences [Sections 303 (3) BNS & 317 BNSS] carried a maximum punishment of 3 and 5 years, respectively.
Case: Chander Pal Singh v State of UP and others
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the state government to pay ₹25,000 per day to such citizens who are illegally detained beyond 24 hours under the preventive detention provisions of BNSS over alleged breach of peace.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi further directed that this compensation must be recovered directly from the salaries of the erring Magistrates or police officials.
Additionally, the bench mandated that the Magistrate and the police official, who are prima facie found responsible for the lapse, shall be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty in accordance with their relevant service Rules.
Case title - Mansoor Ahmad @ Lallu and another vs State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 321
Coming down heavily on the abuse of the preventive detention provision under the BNSS, the Allahabad High Court on Monday observed that magisterial powers granted to Police Commissioners in districts like Prayagraj and Ghaziabad are being “misused to the hilt”.
Terming the situation as "a shocking state of affairs", a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi directed the UP Government to pay ₹2,00,000 as compensation to a man who was illegally jailed for 8 days under the preventive detention provisions of the BNSS over an alleged breach of peace.
The bench further directed that this compensation amount be recovered directly from the salary of the erring Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) following a formal disciplinary inquiry.
Case title - Umesh Mali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others
Interpreting Section 483 (2) BNSS, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that a bail application in certain cases of rape involving minors can be heard even if the informant or complainant/victim is absent, provided they were duly informed about the proceedings [2026 LiveLaw (AB) 324].
The Court stressed that the statutory mandate is to provide the complainant an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter it is at the complainant's "sweet will" whether to appear before the Court at the time of hearing of the bail application.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Puja Hari v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order attaching properties belonging to a woman who was not even named as an accused in a criminal case, while issuing significant guidelines on the exercise of powers under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that indiscriminate use of the power to attach property under Section 107 BNSS, without strict adherence to statutory safeguards, could seriously imperil the constitutional right to property protected under Article 300A of the Constitution.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Case Title: Bittu Ram v. UT of J&K & Ors.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a preventive detention order passed under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, observing that an ordinary citizen is not supposed to know the full form or meaning of the abbreviation 'BNSS' unless law enforcement agencies and the concerned magistrate disclose it.
The Court held that the detention order referring to proceedings under section 128 of 'BNSS' without spelling out the full form violated the petitioner's fundamental right to personal liberty and amounted to a blatant abuse of the process of law.
A Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti, while observing that “the very fact that within seven (7) days, four (4) times' proceedings under section 128 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 stood initiated would mean that none of the proceedings were taken to logical end and still the petitioner came to be clamped under preventive detention,” held that the preventive detention of the petitioner was a blatant abuse of process at the hands of the District Police complemented by the District Magistrate.
Case Title: Mohd. Kabir v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that where a person is already facing preventive proceedings under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the detaining authority must specifically record compelling reasons demonstrating why those proceedings are inadequate to prevent the individual from engaging in activities prejudicial to public order before invoking preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT-NDPS Act).
Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed that although preventive detention and security proceedings under Section 129 BNSS can legally coexist, the detaining authority is under an obligation to independently apply its mind and explain why the existing preventive mechanism has failed or is likely to fail. Absence of such satisfaction renders the detention vulnerable to judicial scrutiny.
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Case Title: Saida Khatoon & Ors. v. Smt. Vandana Dadel & Ors.
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered a judicial inquiry into allegations of custodial torture leading to the death of a man in Palamu district. The Court was hearing a contempt petition alleging violation of the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed that before initiating contempt proceedings, it must first determine whether any State functionary had violated the law laid down in D.K. Basu. Accordingly, the Bench directed the Principal District Judge, Palamu, to nominate a Judicial Magistrate to conduct an inquiry under Section 196(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The inquiry is to commence within fifteen days and a report is to be submitted within three months.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Mr. Birendra Prasad and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Another
Four persons accused of attempting to bribe Odisha Congress MLAs to vote in favour of a BJP candidate during the Rajya Sabha elections conducted in March, told the Karnataka High Court on Thursday (June 4) that the FIR would not survive because the allegations at their highest attracted only non-cognisable offences.
Advocate Angad Kamath appearing for the accused said that the police included Section 140(1) BNS [kidnapping with intent to murder or for ransom] to effect arrest and later deleted the said cognisable offence conveniently, Kamath said further. The petitioners had approached the high court seeking quashing of the FIR.
Before Justice M Nagaprasanna, Kamath submitted today that the subject matter in hand originally made out only non-cognisable offences, for which no FIR could have been lodged without prior permission from a magistrate.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: Anbu v The State of Tamilnadu
The Madras High Court recently held that the power of a trial court to recall a witness under Section 348 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 311 of the CrPC] cannot be used to give a second chance to a negligent litigant to improve their case at the end of the trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275]
Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the criminal trial was not a game of strategy between the prosecution and defence but a search for truth. The court added that the search for truth should be bound by fairness, legality, and procedural discipline. Thus, the court held that the prosecution could not be allowed to bring in something that it failed to establish during the normal course of evidence, unless such evidence is indispensable.
The court emphasized that the power to recall a witness should be exercised not merely because the evidence may be useful but because the absence of the evidence would render an unjust decision.