The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) recently flagged police non-compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, requiring audio-video recording of search and seizure proceedings.

A bench of Justice Rajeev Bharti made the observation while granting interim anticipatory bail to four accused in a case under Sections 3/5A/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, registered at Gosaiganj Police Station, Sultanpur.

The Court noted that the Uttar Pradesh DGP had already issued a circular on July 21, 2025, stating that, as per Section 105 BNSS, audio-video recording of a search or the taking of possession of property is mandatory for the police at the place of search or recovery.

The Court noted that Section 105 BNSS provides that the search and seizure and the signing of the seizure list by witnesses, should be recorded through audio-video electronic means and immediately sent to the concerned Magistrate.

Despite this, the Court observed that the requirement under Section 105 BNSS was “practically not implemented”. It further remarked thus:

"This Court cannot understand why compliance with such a simple statutory requirement is a difficulty for police authorities…In an age where audio-video recording is the norm, compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS should not be seen as burdensome or complex".

On the merits of the case, the accused claimed false implication, submitting that they were not named in the FIR and had subsequently surfaced in the statements of co-accused. They also pointed out that co-accused Salman had already been granted interim anticipatory bail.

The applicants stated that they had no previous criminal history and undertook to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the plea but could not dispute the facts advanced by them.

The Court considered the applicants' lack of criminal history, their undertaking to cooperate with the ongoing investigation and the interim protection already granted to a co-accused.

It therefore granted them interim anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, to operate until the next date of listing or submission of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier.

The applicants were directed to cooperate with the investigation, not influence witnesses and appear whenever called by the Investigating Officer. They were also restrained from leaving India without prior permission.

The investigating agency was permitted to seek vacation of the interim protection in case of default.

Case title - Naseeb Ahmad And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko

Click Here To Read/Download Order