Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: April 2026

SUPREME COURT S.528 BNSS | Criminal Proceedings Can Be Quashed When Reliable Material Disproves Allegations: Supreme Court Cause Title: SAJAL BOSE VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. The Supreme Court on Monday (April 6) held that where the prosecution fails to rebut credible and unimpeachable material which effectively undermines the factual foundation of the complaint, the Court would be justified in exercising its power to quash the proceedings. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria quashed the criminal proceedings against Appellants who were booked for assaulting an old man, noting that CCTV footage proved to be significant as it contradicts the complainant's version which was not countered by the prosecution. Applying the law laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880, where the court laid down the steps to be considered by the High Court while hearing quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court observed that “the continuation of such proceedings, in face of total lack of credible material connecting them with the alleged offences, would amount to misuse of the criminal process.” S.156(3) CrPC/S.175(3) BNSS |Magistrate's Order For Investigation Can't Be Quashed By Relying On Accused's Defence: Supreme Court Cause Title : ACCAMMA SAM JACOB VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. ETC. The Supreme Court has observed that High Courts, while exercising their inherent discretionary powers, cannot derail a police investigation directed by a Magistrate when the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. It held that at this stage, the Court must remain confined to the allegations in the complaint and the material placed by the complainant and cannot go beyond them to examine the defences put forward by the accused. “…the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, should not travel beyond the allegations contained in the complaint and the material placed by the complainant by delving into the defences sought to be projected by the accused-respondents.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta while setting aside the Karnataka High Court's decision interfering with the ongoing investigation upon examining the defences put forth by the accused. S. 225 BNSS | Magistrate Must Conduct Inquiry Or Order Probe Before Proceeding Against Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Cause Title: RAJEEV MEHTA @ RAJIV KISHOR KIRTILAL MEHTA VERSUS PARAM BIR SINGH The Supreme Court has held that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation under Section 225 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before proceeding against an accused residing outside the territorial jurisdiction. In other words, if a person is being accused in a criminal complaint and lives outside the jurisdictional area of the court, the Magistrate cannot immediately issue a summons without following the mandate of Section 225 BNSS, the Court held. “…it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to press into service Section 225, upon satisfying himself that the accused person is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises jurisdiction.”, observed a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale, while setting aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment to the extend it upheld the magistrate's decision to proceed against the accused without following the mandate of Section 225. S.480(3) BNSS Bail Conditions Not Applicable To Offences Punishable Up To 7 Yrs Imprisonment: Supreme Court Cause Title: NARAYAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH The Supreme Court has observed that for non-bailable offences punishable up to seven years, bail can be granted without imposing the conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal filed by an accused, who was granted bail in a case registered under the MP Excise Act (Act) for allegedly possessing illicit liquor. Noting that the offence in question carries a maximum sentence of three years and is non-bailable, the Court set aside the order of the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had cancelled the Appellant's bail solely on the ground of alleged violation of conditions imposed under Section 480(3) of the BNSS. Magistrate Doesn't Require Prior Sanction To Direct FIR Registration Under S.156(3) CrPC: Supreme Court Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 943/2021 (and connected cases) The Supreme Court today held that a Judicial Magistrate does not require prior sanction under Section 196/197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing the registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. "The requirement of prior sanction...

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: April 2026

Upasana Sajeev

Tags