Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: June 2025

SUPREME COURT Complainant In S.138 NI Act Case Can File Appeal Against Acquittal As 'Victim' Under S.372 Proviso CrPC: Supreme Court Case : M/s Celestium Financial v A Gnanasekaran Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 666 In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a complainant in a cheque dishonour case for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a "victim" within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 2(y) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita], who can file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC [Section 413 of the BNSS]. "In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Section 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the victim owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an option and he need not then elect to proceed under Section 378 of the CrPC," held a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Anticipatory Bail Plea Maintainable In NDPS Act Cases; S. 482 BNSS Prevails Over 'CrPC (UP Amendment) Act 2018': Allahabad HC Case title - Sudhir @ Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia vs. State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home And 3 Others In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has held that with the enforcement of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, anticipatory bail plea would now be maintainable in NDPS Act cases in the state of Uttar Pradesh, as the previous bar under the state's CrPC amendment has effectively been repealed by the BNSS. A bench of Justice Manish Mathur ruled that with the enactment of the BNSS, the restriction imposed by the Criminal Procedure Code (UP Amendment) Act, 2018, specifically Section 438(6), which barred anticipatory bail in NDPS Act cases, no longer holds effect. The Court held that BNSS, being a central legislation, overrides the state-specific amendment to the CrPC, and thus, the bar on anticipatory bail in such cases in Uttar Pradesh stands removed. DELHI HIGH COURT S.187(3)BNSS | Chargesheet Filed Without Obtaining Sanction To Prosecute Under Arms Act Not Incomplete, No Default Bail: Delhi High Court Case title:Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 710 The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an accused under the Arms Act, 1959 cannot seek default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 merely on the ground that the chargesheet filed against him in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS, lacks the sanction to prosecute. Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is mandatory to prosecute a person for offences under Sections 25/ 27. Justice Tejas Karia conceded that if an incomplete chargesheet is filed by the prosecution, it gives rise to the right of default bail, even if the same is filed within the prescribed period. However, the bench added, “chargesheet filed by the investigating agency for offences under the Arms Act 1959, without obtaining sanction under Section 39, does not render the chargesheet incomplete and accused cannot for the purposes of seeking under Section 193(3) of the BNSS.” GAUHATI HIGH COURT [S.187 BNSS] Status Of Hospitalised Arrestee Cannot Remain Unknown, Magistrate Must Verify Through Visit Or VC: Gauhati High Court Case Title: Bittu Kumar v State of Assam (Bail Appln./1662/2025) The Gauhati High Court, in an order dated June 2, emphasized that in cases where an arrestee is not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of arrest due to medical urgency, the magistrate must verify the status of such arrestee. The court remarked that even in such cases the magistrate has to, either through a personal visit or video conferencing, verify the status of the arrestee by passing a remand order to judicial or police custody. The bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita held, "Section 187 of BNSS categorically states that subject to condition of bail, the Magistrate may authorize his detention either in judicial or in police custody. Unless, such an order is passed, the initial arrest of the petitioner beyond the period of 24 hours from the time of his arrest, would become illegal". S.482(4) BNSS | 'And' Must Be Read As 'Or'; No Anticipatory Bail If Person Is Accused Of S.65 Or S.70 BNS: Gauhati High Court Case Title: Nazir Hussain & 3 Ors. v. State of Assam Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 26 The Gauhati High Court recently held that the embargo under Section 482(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on granting anticipatory bail will apply to offences either under Section 65 or Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Court held that the word "and" appearing in Section 482(4) ...

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: June 2025

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: June 2025

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers