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

SUPREME COURT Supreme Court Directs Trial Courts To Pass Orders For Victim Compensation In Criminal Cases To Ensure Timely Disbursal Case Title: Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole v. Union of India & Others In a significant step to strengthen the victim compensation framework, the Supreme Court has directed all Special and Sessions Courts across the country to issue appropriate directions for the payment of victim compensation in eligible cases. The Court observed that the absence of such directions from trial courts has become a major impediment to victims receiving compensation under statutory schemes. The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan passed the order while hearing a public interest petition filed by Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole seeking effective implementation of victim compensation schemes. The Bench also ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to all High Courts for circulation among Principal District Judges and Special Courts. "the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts shall communicate this order to the Directors of all the State Judicial Academies for onward communication to all Principal District Judges that the Special Courts/Session Courts and also to impress upon concerned Special Court Judges with regard to the aspect of payment of victim compensation during the course of their training in the State Judicial Academies in accordance with Section 357A of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 396 of the BNSS and POCSO Act and Rules," the Court ordered. S. 482 CrPC/S. 528 BNSS | In Quashing Plea, Court Cannot Inquire Into Credibility Of Allegations In FIR/Complaint: Supreme Court Cause Title: MUSKAN VERSUS ISHAAN KHAN (SATANIYA) AND OTHERS The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore bench order that had quashed an FIR under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, filed by a woman against her husband and his family. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra criticized the High Court for holding a 'mini-trial' at the quashing stage, going into the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Can High Courts Hear Anticipatory Bail Pleas Bypassing Sessions Courts? Supreme Court Refers Issue To 3-Judge Bench Case Title: MOHAMMED RASAL.C & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR., SLP (Crl.) No. 6588/2025 The Supreme Court on Wednesday referred to a three-judge bench the issue of whether High Courts can directly entertain anticipatory bail applications filed without first approaching the Sessions Courts. A 2-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ordered that the matter be placed before a 3-judge bench. It was in September that the present bench took up this issue in the case Mohammed Rasal C v State of Kerala after expressing disapproval of the practice of the Kerala High Court to directly entertain anticipatory bail matters. The Court expressed the view that though Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Courts and Sessions Courts, applications for anticipatory bail should ordinarily be moved first before the Sessions Court, and that direct recourse to the High Court should be reserved for exceptional cases. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Officials Seeking Brownie Points: Allahabad High Court Awards ₹50K Compensation To Man Jailed For 1.5 Months Over 'False' Anti-Conversion Law FIR Case title - Umed @ Ubaid Kha and others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and others In a sharp indictment of official overreach, the Allahabad High Court recently quashed an FIR registered 5 persons under UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and the BNS as it observed that the case represented a "glaring example of the State authorities falling and scrambling over each other in order to score brownie points". The Bench noted that VV's subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS made the situation unambiguous that she had travelled alone to Delhi, stayed there and later returned voluntarily. The Court also noted that offences under Sections 316(2) and 317(2) (criminal breach of trust and stolen property) did not warrant automatic arrest under the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case as these offences only entail a sentence of five years and three years respectively. Allahabad High Court Stays Trial Against SP MLA, Wife In Domestic Help Suicide Abetment Case Case title - Zahid Beg Alias Zahid Jamal Beg And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another The Allahabad High Court recently stayed further proceedings in a sessions trial against Samajwadi Party MLA from Bhadohi, Zahid Beg @ Zahid Jamal Beg and his wife (Seema Beg), who have been accused in the suicide abetment case linked to their domestic help. ...

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

Upasana Sajeev

Tags