Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest – January 2025

Supreme Court:Plea In Supreme Court Challenges BSA's Electronic Evidence & Confession Provisions And BNS SectionsCase Title: Vinod Kumar Boinapally Versus Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 40/2025 (and connected case)Former MP Vinod Kumar Boinapally has moved the Supreme Court challenging certain provisions of the BNS and the BSA, which replaced the erstwhile penal laws viz. the IPC and the Evidence Act.Boinapally has filed two writ petitions before the Court. One of these challenges the constitutional vires of Sections 113 (Terrorist Act) and 152 (Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The other challenges Sections 61-63, second proviso to Section 22, explanation (II) to Section 24, and first proviso to Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam.Union Govt Turns Down Supreme Court's Suggestion For Separate Law On Bail; Says BNSS Provisions Are AdequateThe Union Government has told the Supreme Court that there is no proposal to bring a separate law on bail as the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) are adequate.The Supreme Court, in the 2022 judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation had recommended to the Union Government to bring a separate Bail Act to streamline the grant of bail. Last year, the Court had asked the Union to inform if a separate bail law was under contemplation.Police Shouldn't Serve S.41A CrPC/S.35 BNSS Notice Through WhatsApp Or Electronic Means: Supreme CourtCase : Satender Kumar Antil v CBICitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 112The Supreme Court has directed that police should not serve notice for appearance to the accused/suspect as per Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) through WhatsApp or other electronic modes.The Court made it amply clear that the service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.S.187 BNSS | Supreme Court Affirms HC Judgment That Police Custody Must Be Within First 40 Days For Offences Punishable Upto 10 Yrs ImprisonmentCase : Hyder Ali v.State of Karnataka (2024)The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that as per Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the 15-day police custody must be sought within the first forty days in cases of offences which are punishable upto ten years of imprisonment.Delhi High Court:S.479 BNSS | Trial Courts Must Not Mechanically Adjourn Bail Pleas Of Undertrials Who Completed One-Half Of Maximum Imprisonment: Delhi HCTitle: Suleman Samad V. State Of N.C.T. Of DelhiCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 112The Delhi High Court has ruled that the trial courts must promptly pass orders and must not mechanically adjourn bail applications moved in cases covered by Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where the undertrial prisoners have already undergone one half of the maximum imprisonment.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in case a judge proceeds on leave, it must be brought to the notice of the concerned Link Judge that such cases are to be taken up on priority, either on the next date or at the shortest possible date.Kerala High Court:Benefit Of First Proviso To Section 479 BNSS Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively To Convicted Prisoners: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Arunkumar v State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 72The Kerala High Court recently held that the benefit of Section 479 of BNSS, particularly the first proviso thereof, cannot be applied retrospectively to convicted prisoners. For context, Section 479 BNSS deals with the maximum period of time for which a undertrial prisoner can be detained. Justice C. S. Sudha noted that the Supreme Court by an order in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons has made Section 479 retrospectively applicable to undertrials in cases registered before July 1, 2024. The High Court said that the Apex Court has not given the benefit of the Section to convicted prisoners. Thus at this stage, Court said it cannot extend the benefit to convicts.[Section 223 BNSS] Notice Of Hearing Can Be Issued To Prospective Accused Only After Examining Complainant And Witnesses: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Suby Antony v R1 (Deleted) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 64The Kerala High Court has clarified that before issuing notice to an accused named in the complaint, the Magistrate must first examine the complainant and witnesses on oath as per Section 223 (1) of the BNSS. It further clarified that as per first proviso to Section 223 (1), if the Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence, the accused should be given an opportunity of hearing.Justice V.G. Arun observed that the first proviso of Section 223(1) of the BNSS introduced a "radical change," as the...

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest – January 2025

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags