LiveLaw Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: August 2026
Upasana Sajeev
19 Sept 2026 10:00 AM IST
SUPREME COURT Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Inclusion Of District Police Chief In Kerala Public Prosecutor Appointments Case no. – Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28482/2026 The Supreme Court on August 19 issued notice on a plea challenging the inclusion of the District Police Chief in the State of Kerala's procedure for appointing Public Prosecutors...
This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers
Subscribe Premium 
INR 1099+GST
Your support helps us to bring you more content at
an affordable subscription scheme !!!
All payment options available
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Inclusion Of District Police Chief In Kerala Public Prosecutor Appointments
Case no. – Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28482/2026
The Supreme Court on August 19 issued notice on a plea challenging the inclusion of the District Police Chief in the State of Kerala's procedure for appointing Public Prosecutors under Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The petitioner contends that Section 18(4) requires the District Magistrate to consult the Sessions Judge and does not permit the Police Chief, who heads the investigating agency, to be part of the consultative process.
The petitioner has also challenged the State's procedure of allowing the District Collector to prepare an initial list of eligible advocates before consulting the Sessions Judge.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case - Aatish Alias Krishnkant v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 510
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to issue necessary directions to all police officers to ensure that while recording statements under Section 180 BNSS, they do not put inculpatory leading questions to witnesses and instead record the version stated by the witness in his or her own language, except for seeking clarification on certain points.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal issued the direction while dealing with a bail application wherein it took exception to the audio/video recording of statements made by the first informant and his wife under Section 180 BNSS.
The bench found that the police officer who recorded the audio/video of the statement under Section 180 BNSS, instead of recording the version of the incident as per the first informant and his wife, tried to suggest leading questions that are inculpatory in nature.
Case title - Indra Pati And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 528
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that police authorities and Executive officers have no jurisdiction to adjudicate or interfere in civil disputes between private parties, while clarifying that any deviation may invite departmental as well as contempt proceedings.
In its order passed on July 27, the Court emphasized that police can intervene only to the limited extent necessary for maintaining public peace and preventing breach of law and order, as provided under the BNSS or CrPC.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made this observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by an 85-year-old woman who alleged that the police were continuously harassing her and siding with private respondents in a family property dispute.
Case Title - Rakesh Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 543
The Allahabad High Court has held that no police officer, irrespective of rank, can direct further investigation in a criminal case during the pendency of trial without first obtaining the permission of the court trying the case.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena noted that this was a settled position of the law under Section 173(8) CrPC, however, now it has been expressly incorporated under Section 193(9) BNSS that prior permission of the Court would be required for the police to conduct a further investigation.
Case title - Naseeb Ahmad And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko
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.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case: Sinjini Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court has held that a victim in a criminal proceeding is entitled to obtain copies of documents contemplated under Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), observing that the mere mention of a wrong statutory provision in an application cannot defeat a substantive legal right.
Justice Dr Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee set aside an order of the Judicial Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta, which had rejected an application by a victim seeking legible copies of documents forming part of the investigation material in connection with G.R. No. 798 of 2022.
The Court directed the trial court to hand over the copies of the documents covered by Section 230 of the BNSS to the victim within 10 days of communication of its order.
Case: Purba Chatterjee & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against four persons accused of subjecting a woman to cruelty, theft and criminal intimidation in connection with a matrimonial dispute, holding that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of the offences against them.
Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Purba Chatterjee and three others, observed that the petitioners were not relatives of the husband of the complainant and, therefore, an offence under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (earlier Section 498A IPC) could not be sustained against them.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Case title: JASIR BILAL WANI @ DANISH v/s NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (August 18) denied default bail to Jasir Bilal Wani @ Danish one of the accused in the car explosion that took place on November 10, 2025 near Red Fort which claimed 15 lives. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 760]
Applying the doctrine of legislation by reference the court said that Section 167 CrPC as applicable to Section 43(D)(2) UAPA must be construed as Section 187 BNSS.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan said that while Cr.P.C. stands, Section 43D(2) of the UAPA continues to refer to Section 167 Cr.P.C. The difference between Section 167 Cr.P.C. and Section 187 of the BNSS is in respect of the period for police custody within the 90 days period.
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Case Title: Miss Maning Baki and Anr v. The State of AP
The Gauhati High Court has held that a settlement between the accused and the victim cannot justify quashing criminal proceedings involving a serious offence where societal interest lies in prosecution of the offender.
The High Court said that the power of quashing under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, could be exercised even in respect of non-compoundable offences, but the ambit of such power was not unlimited.
Case Title: Satyabrata Dey v. State of Assam & Ors.
The Gauhati High Court has held that a writ petition seeking registration of an FIR cannot be entertained where the petitioner has directly invoked the Court's writ jurisdiction without first availing the statutory remedy under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Justice Manish Choudhury observed, “Without availing such statutory remedy provided under the BNSS, the petitioner has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking for initiation of criminal proceedings with registration of the FIR. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, such a recourse to writ proceeding in the first instance is contrary to the settled principles of law.”
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Name: Kazeema Sheikh v/s State of H.P.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that merely asking a woman to take care of her health, particularly her food habits to prevent a future miscarriage, may not be sufficient to conclude that she was being harassed or tortured for not bearing a child.
The Court made the observation while granting bail to a woman accused of abetting the suicide of her sister-in-law, holding that to establish abetment or instigation to commit suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), some overt act on the part of the accused is required.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Merely asking somebody to take care of her health, especially with regard to food habits so that miscarriage is prevented in future may not be sufficient to conclude that deceased was being harassed and tortured for her not bearing a child.”
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sidul Mandal v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
The Karnataka High Court has observed that facilitating fake Aadhaar and PAN cards for illegal immigrants from Bangladesh prima facie amounts to an act endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276]
The single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty thus dismissed the bail plea of Sidul Mandal, a 46-year-old man from Dhaka, accused in the racket.
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. JAR Gold Retail Private Limited & Connected Matters
The Karnataka High Court has held that investigating officers are empowered to freeze bank accounts during investigation under Section 106 of the BNSS and are not required to invoke Section 107 for attachment of property in every case. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 288]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna made the ruling while allowing criminal petitions filed by the State of Karnataka against JAR Gold Retail Private Limited and setting aside orders of the jurisdictional court directing the defreezing of the company's bank accounts.
The Court held that Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS operate in distinct fields and that interpreting Section 107 as the sole mechanism for securing bank accounts would render Section 106 ineffective.
Case Title: Dr. Vinuta B. & M/s Kids Clinic India Ltd. (Cloudnine Hospital) v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
The Karnataka High Court has on August 10 [Monday] quashed the multiple notices under Section 94 and Section 179 of BNSS issued by the police to Cloud Nine Hospital and its staff-including its female employees, in connection with the unnatural death of a patient following a polypectomy procedure. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290]
“….when the petitioners have responded to every notice, furnished every document sought, cooperated throughout the enquiry, and yet continue to be subjected to successive requisitions wholly disproportionate to the object of an enquiry under Section 194 of the BNSS, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned notices amount to a patent abuse of the process of law. Their continuation would not advance the object of the inquest; it would only legitimise an exercise of power that the statute itself does not sanction”, the single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted in the order while quashing the notices issued by the police.
Case Title: State of Karnataka by Koramangala Police Station v. JAR Gold Retail Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court has held that police do not need to obtain prior approval from a Magistrate to debit-freeze a bank account during investigation, where the freeze is imposed as an investigative and preservative measure under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287]
Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that such a debit freeze does not become an “attachment” under Section 107 merely because it restricts operation of the bank account.
Case: MUKESH JAIN v STATE OF KARNATAKA,
The Karnataka High Court has held that courts dealing with seized property under Section 497 BNSS must strictly adhere to the prescribed timelines for its disposal, requiring preparation of the property's statement within 14 days of its production before the court and an order regarding its disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery within the subsequent 30 days. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302]
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that Section 497(2) and Section 497(5) BNSS collectively prescribe a 45-day period from the date of seizure for the concerned court or Magistrate to pass an order regarding disposal of the seized property.
Case Title: Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (August 24) quashed a chargesheet against the owner of a homestay in Kodagu who was booked for failing to report a sexual assault on a US national at his property, along with offences under the repealed Foreigner's Act, 1946. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 316]
Justice M. Nagaprasanna in his order said:
“Section 239 of the BNS punishes the breach of a legal duty; it does not create one out of silence. …If there is no legal duty, there can be no legally culpable omission; and if there can be no legally culpable omission, Section 239 of the BNS cannot be summoned merely because the prosecution alleges knowledge…. To permit it to survive would be to convert a provision punishing breach of a legal duty into one punishing breach of a perceived moral duty. The two are not synonymous. Morality may expect a citizen to speak; criminal law can punish his silence only when the statute commands him to speak. A moral expectation cannot, by prosecutorial alchemy, be converted into a penal obligation”, the court underscored.
Case Title: Mr. K.N. Mohan Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Another
The Karnataka High Court has on August 25 [Tuesday] termed the simultaneous arrest of a person despite a statutory notice issued earlier under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, directing him to appear on a future date, as a 'classical illustration' of illegal arrest.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while hearing the petition challenging the arrest and FIR, observed that the police action was tantamount to 'taking the liberty of citizens for granted in this fashion'.
“…This Court has repeatedly observed that citizens are arrested without rhyme or reason. The case forms a classical illustration of such illegal arrest…”, the Court remarked.
Case Title: Mr. K.N. Mohan Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Another
The Karnataka High Court has come down heavily on the police for what it termed 'police raj', declaring the arrest of a witness in connection with a disputed Will as illegal and imposing exemplary costs of Rs 3,00,000 on the Investigating Officer, and his superior officers for dereliction of supervisory duty.
The petitioner-witness, who is accused no.2 in the FIR lodged in connection with the Will, was taken into custody two days prior to his date of appearance upon the issuance of Section 35(3) BNSS Notice.
Case Title: Sri Mohan Gowda v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
The Karnataka High Court on August 28[ Friday] came down heavily on the Whitefield Police for what it termed as a recurring pattern of illegal arrests by the Station, by allegedly misusing the provision under Section 35(3) BNSS.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: C.T. Muneer v. Union of India & Others
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (August 5) sought the Centre's response to a public interest litigation seeking guidelines for granting sanction and 'deemed sanction' for prosecuting corrupt public officials.
The petitioner referred to Sections 19 and 29A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as the Apex Court's directions in Vineet Narain & others v. Union of India and CBI v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal to state that the Central Government has a duty to frame rules.
Moreover, it was stated that the sanctioning authorities already have a duty to accord sanction within the time prescribed in the Act and if not, the same amounts to “deemed sanction”, which is a concept recognized under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Case Title: Arun K. Thomas v. Narcotic Control Bureau & connected cases
The Kerala High Court has issued a slew of guidelines that must be followed upon the arrest of persons in order to safeguard their constitutional and statutory rights. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 463]
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, while considering a batch of bail applications, further clarified that an accused has to be produced before the Magistrate only within 24 hours of formal arrest, and not actual physical custody, if pre-arrest detention is permitted by law.
The Court observed:
“Pre-arrest detention is permissible where explicitly authorised by statute—such as under Sections 179(1) and 35(3) of BNSS (160(1) and 41-A of Cr.P.C), Sections 67, 42, 43 and 50 of the NDPS Act, Rule 3 of the NDPS Disposal Rules, Section 50 of the PMLA, or Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act—which provide a clear procedural framework for enquiry or limited restraint of liberty. In such cases, the reckoning of the twenty-four hours begins only upon formal arrest. In all other circumstances, any deprivation of liberty prior to arrest must be treated as part of the detention period, and the statutory timeline for judicial oversight is triggered at that point.”
Case Title: Muhammed Ashfaq C. v. Union of India and connected cases
The Kerala High Court has held that arrest of a person would be vitiated if the arrestee's relative/friend/nominated person is not informed of the arrest grounds when first produced before the nearest, non-jurisdictional magistrate for transit remand. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 465]
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed:
“when a person who is arrested is brought before a non-jurisdictional Magistrate even if only for the purpose of ordering a transit or transit remand, it is imperative that the grounds of arrest be communicated both to the aresstee and to his relative or friend, as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constituiton and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, prior to such production.”
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Tanmay v State of Madhya Pradesh, M.Cr.C.No.32864/2026
While granting bail to an accused, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that mere criminal antecedents are insufficient to invoke the offence of organised crime under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), unless the statutory ingredients of the provision are prima facie established. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 307]
The court, examining the evidence on record, noted that none of the essential ingredients of Section 111 of BNS is 'prima facie' made out against the applicant and therefore addition of Section 111 of BNS was "wholly unwarranted".
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-14795-2026
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the pendency of a civil dispute over ownership or tenancy of a property cannot prevent authorities from taking preventive action under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to vacate a dangerous building and safeguard human life. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 314]
Justice Himanshu Joshi made the observation while dismissing three petitions challenging orders directing the occupants to vacate a century-old building in Sagar district after it was found to be structurally unsafe.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR arising out of the death of a bystander who was allegedly hit by a bullet during an unauthorised target shooting practice, holding that a compromise with the deceased's legal heirs cannot be a ground to quash proceedings for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and allied offences, which are crimes against society. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 313]
Emphasizing that the "silence of the grave cannot be substituted by signatures of heirs", the bench of Justice Gajendra Singh held,
"offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 105 of the BNS, 2023 coupled with the offence under section 238 of the BNS, 2023 and section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 falls within the category of henious and serious offences of mental depravity. These offences are not private in nature. These offences have serious impact on the society. "Silence of grave" cannot be substituted by signature of heirs. Hence, First Information Report of this case as well as subsequent proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise".
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: R Raja v The Commissioner of Police and Others
The Madras High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by police personnel while summoning persons in connection with a case. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 373]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that while courts do not normally interfere with the investigation conducted by police officers, it could also not turn a blind eye to harassment by police officers under the guise of investigation.
The court thus directed the police to issue written summons to a person under Section 179 BNSS, specifying the particular date and time for appearing before the police for enquiry/investigation. The court further directed that the minutes of the enquiry should be recorded in the general diary/station diary or the daily diary of the police station.
The court also directed the police officer to refrain from harassing the persons called for enquiry/investigation. The court also directed the police to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari for preliminary enquiry or registration of FIR.
Case Title: Nakkeeran Gopal v The State
The Madras High Court has said that an accused in a criminal case cannot seek a general direction asking police not to harass him/her. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 381]
“When the petitioner is an accused in a registered case, the prayer for a general direction not to harass cannot be entertained by this Court,” the court observed.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus refused to grant protection to journalist Nakeeran Gopal in his plea seeking direction to the police not to harass him. The court, however, added that Gopal would be at liberty to challenge the conditions that were imposed in the notice issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS, if they interfered with his fundamental right to freedom. The court added that the police could not seek information which was not legally permissible or not directly connected with the alleged offence.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Title: Smt. Mamta Jangid v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has held the midnight arrest of a woman without prior permission of the Magistrate to be violative of Section 43(5) BNSS, but ruled that the illegality in arrest alone was not a ground to quash the proceedings against her under the NDPS Act.
At the same time, noting the lapse on the part of the Sub-Inspector who effected the arrest, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to take action for training police personnel about the procedure of arrest.
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Telangana High Court Quashes Police Notice To X Seeking User Details Of Person Not Named In FIR
Case title: P Rajagopal v/s The State of Telangana & Ors.
The Telangana High Court quashed a Section 94 BNSS notice issued by the police to social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter) seeking details of a user/account holder, after noting that user's name did not feature in the FIR under investigation and hence there was no prima facie basis for issuance of the notice. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 126]
Case Title: R. Jaya Laxmi v. State of Telangana & Ors.
The Telangana High Court has held that where the police conduct an investigation into an unnatural or accidental death under Section 174 CrPC, the final report must be filed before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate of First Class and not before an Executive Magistrate. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 130]
The Court further held that the person who first gave information regarding the death must be informed of the action taken by the police.
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao issued the direction while dealing with a petition filed by a woman whose husband died after falling into a ditch dug for laying a water pipeline.
Though the Court declined to order reinvestigation after more than a decade, it directed that henceforth the procedure under Section 173(2) CrPC, now Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, must be followed even for investigations conducted under Section 174 CrPC, now Section 194 BNSS.
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Case: Sumit Patwal Versus State Of Uttarakhand [WPCRL/1247/2026]
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that an application seeking production of Call Detail Records (CDRs) and tower-location details “cannot be rejected solely on the ground of the victim's right to privacy when the records are prima facie relevant for a just adjudication of the case”.
Identifying the primary question for consideration as whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application seeking preservation and production of CDRs and tower location details solely because the records would infringe the victim's right to privacy, the Court observed:
“Section 94 of the B.N.S.S. empowers the Court to direct production of any document, electronic communication or other thing where such production appears necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation, inquiry or trial. Electronic records, including CDRs and tower location details, may constitute relevant evidence depending upon the facts of the case. Where there exists a reasonable apprehension that such records may be permanently destroyed owing to the retention policy of the service provider, the Court is required to consider their preservation so that relevant evidence is not lost.
