S. 187(3) BNSS | Non-Supply Of Charge Sheet To Accused Not Ground For Default Bail: Supreme Court

Cause Title: SHAURYA SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 1) held that the non-supply of a charge sheet copy to an accused cannot be a ground for a default bail under Section 187(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh upheld the Bombay High Court's decision, which had rejected the accused's plea for a default bail on the ground of non-supply of a charge sheet copy to him.

New Criminal Law Allows Police Custody Beyond First 15 Days: Supreme Court Explains S.187(2) BNSS

Cause Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU

Observing that police custody under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not confined to the initial fifteen days of remand and may be sought in parts within the statutory period, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 27) set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's condition prohibiting extension of the accused's police custody beyond the first fifteen days of remand.

“Section 187(2) and (3) BNSS, unlike the erstwhile Section 167 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enlarges the window during which police custody, in the aggregate not exceeding fifteen days, may be sought by the investigating agency, such custody being available in parts, during the first forty or sixty days of the total permissible period of detention, rather than being confined to the first fifteen days of remand alone.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

S. 38 BNSS | Advocate Of Accused Cannot Remain Present Throughout Police Interrogation: Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU

Clarifying the scope of Section 38 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 27) held that the provision entitles an arrested person to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation but does not contemplate continuous physical presence throughout the interrogation.

“A plain reading of the provision makes it clear that the right guaranteed thereunder is the right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation. It does not, by any means, contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session, whatever be the visual or audible distance maintained.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Appeal Won't Lie Under S.374 CrPC/415 BNSS Against Sessions Court's Reversal Of Acquittal: Supreme Court

Cause Title: VISHNU KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 30) held that no statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC would be maintainable before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, overturning the trial court's decision of acquittal. The Court said that the only remedy would be to file a revision petition before the High Court against the Sessions Court decision of reversing an acquittal.

“…an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is not maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court. The only remedy which is available, is that of filing a revision under Section 397 r/w 401 (corresponding to Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).”, observed a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

Witness Testimony Recorded Without S.299 CrPC Order Can't Be Later Used Against Accused Who Absconded Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (July 31) observed that evidence recorded in a trial against one accused cannot be used against an absconding accused in a subsequent trial unless an order under Section 299 Cr.P.C. / Section 335 BNSS was passed establishing the two jurisdictional facts, i.e., the accused was absconding and that there was no immediate prospect of arresting him.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the murder conviction of the appellant, who had absconded during the trial against his co-accused in 1999 and was later convicted in a separate trial. His conviction was based on the testimony of a deceased witness which was recorded in the previous trial against the co-accused.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Suicide Abetment | 'Persistent Humiliation Touching Domestic Life & Dignity Can Amount To Instigation':Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Chandrajeet Singh vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 417

The Allahabad High Court last week refused to discharge a man accused of abetting the suicide of his alleged paramour's husband, observing that the persistent humiliation of a person, particularly when it touches upon their domestic life and dignity, can amount to instigation.

A Bench of Justice Santosh Rai thus denied relief to appellant Chandrajeet Singh while taking into account a suicide note that narrated a "systematic pattern of humiliation".

Observing that the suicide note was a critical piece of evidence, the Court said:

"While "abetment" under Section 108 BNS requires mens rea and an active act of instigation, the persistent humiliation of a person, particularly when it touches upon their domestic life and dignity, can indeed amount to instigation".

Allahabad High Court Directs Criminal Prosecution Of Litigant & Her Lawyer For 'Forging' Signatures On Affidavits In PIL

Case Title: Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 422

The Allahabad High Court has ordered criminal proceedings against a litigant and her advocate after finding prima facie evidence of forgery and fabrication in a public interest litigation filed before it.

The Court acted after a forensic report revealed discrepancies in the signatures appearing on documents filed in the case.

“…explanation offered by...Advocate coupled with findings recorded by FSL in its report, we are prima facie satisfied that...Advocate and petitioner Sangeeta Gupta have committed offence described in Section 215(1)(b) of BNSS and, therefore, the matter has to be tried by jurisdictional Magistrate at Prayagraj as per provisions contained under Section 379 BNSS and other allied provisions," the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed.

Absconding To Evade Arrest In Dowry Case: Allahabad High Court Rejects Mother's Habeas Corpus Plea Claiming Son Detained By Wife

Case title - Omwati And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus writ petition filed by a mother seeking the production of her 35-year-old son after noting that the man is instead absconding to evade arrest in a dowry and harassment case.

“The investigation against accused persons have been concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner Omwati and corpus Manish, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, as such, no ground is made out for entertaining this habeas corpus writ petition,” a bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed in its July 21 order.

S. 80 & 85 BNS | Can A Man In A Void Second Marriage Be Treated As 'Husband' For Dowry Death, Cruelty Offences? Allahabad High Court Answers

Case Title: Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 451

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the word 'husband' under Section 80 (Dowry Death) and 85 (Cruelty) BNS will ordinarily include only a person who is legally married to the woman, and not a person whose marriage with the woman is itself void.

In other words, the High Court clarified that a man whose second marriage is void owing to the subsistence of his first marriage cannot ordinarily be treated as a "husband' for the purposes of the above-mentioned provisions.

The Court, however, clarified that the position would be different where the validity of the first marriage is itself doubtful, where the woman was induced into the marriage by concealment of the existing marriage, or where multiple marriages are valid under Muslim Personal Law.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this observation while granting bail to a man whose second wife had allegedly died by suicide, and he faces charges under Sections 80 (2) and 85 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Writ Of Mandamus Can't Be Issued For Non-Registration Of Criminal Case, BNSS Provides Efficacious Remedy: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Chandan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 456

The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in favour of a petitioner who is unable to show a legal right in himself and a corresponding public duty cast by law upon the authority.

It held that where the grievance is in substance one of non-registration of a criminal case, the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy under Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and must be relegated to it.

The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,

“Mandamus is the most valuable and essential remedy in the Administrative Justice resorted to supply want of some appropriate ordinary remedy. The functions of the writ court is to compel the performance of public duty, for which, the person approaching the writ court, has a clear, specific and unequivocal, constitutional or statutory or legal right to the relief sought and a failure on the part of those who are bound to perform certain duties and functions, as laid down by the legislature or directions issued for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of an enactment or of any delegated or subordinate legislation. There must be a legal right and corresponding legal duty.”

Refusal Of Judicial Remand Doesn't Bar Further Investigation Or Taking Cognizance: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Adeem Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459

The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because judicial remand was earlier declined would not by itself preclude the Investigating Officer from conducting further investigation or prevent the court from independently considering the police report at the stage of taking cognizance.

A bench of Justice Zafeer Ahmad made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal challenging an order of the Special Judge, SCST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, taking cognizance and summoning the appellant in a case registered under Section 69 BNS and Sections 3(1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of the SCST Act.

The Court observed

"An order refusing judicial remand is passed at a distinct stage of the criminal proceedings and serves a purpose entirely different from an order taking cognizance Such an order neither amounts to an adjudication upon the legality of the investigation nor operates as a judicial determination that the offences in question are not made out".

It further held

"It certainly does not curtail the statutory authority of the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation collect further material and submit an appropriate police report under the provisions of the BNSS 2023".

S.528 BNSS | Can High Court Invoke Its Inherent Powers Suo Motu To Quash Criminal Case In A Complainant's Appeal? Allahabad HC Answers

Case title - X Complainant Of Complaint Case No. 65/2026 2026 vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 467

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the HC can invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) suo motu to quash criminal proceedings even while dealing with an appeal filed by the complainant where it finds that continuation of the proceedings would defeat the "ends of justice" or amount to an "abuse of the process of any Court".

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while dealing with an appeal filed by a complainant challenging an order of the Special Judge whereby her application under Section 173 (4) BNSS was treated as a complaint instead of directing registration of an FIR on the application.

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

S.482 BNSS | Accused Need Not Surrender Before Jurisdictional Magistrate To Avail Anticipatory Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: T. Gevanamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 BNSS does not require an accused to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate as a condition for availing anticipatory bail. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 151]

While modifying the Sessions Court's direction requiring the petitioner to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate within seven days, the Court observed that an anticipatory bail order must provide for the accused's release in the event of arrest and cannot make such relief conditional upon surrender before a Magistrate.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao observed:

"Importantly, Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 482 of the BNSS does not contemplate a requirement that the Petitioner must surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate and only upon such surrender be released on bail.

Can POCSO Court Frame Charges Without Hearing Accused On Discharge? Andhra Pradesh High Court Answers

Case Title: Shaik Shahina & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a POCSO Special Court cannot frame charges without first affording the accused an effective opportunity of hearing on the question of discharge as contemplated under Sections 250 and 251 BNSS. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 152]

Clarifying that the POCSO Act's mandate for expeditious trials does not override the accused's statutory right to seek discharge, the Court observed that under Section 251(1) BNSS, charges can be framed only after the accused is heard on discharge under Section 250 BNSS.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Police Entering Woman's Bedroom Without Lady Constable Violates Privacy: Bombay High Court Declares Mobile Seizure Illegal

Case Title: Khushbu Iddrish Khan vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 128 of 2026)

Holding that police officers cannot ride roughshod over statutory safeguards in the name of investigation, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has ruled that police entering a woman's bedroom at night without a lady constable and seizing her mobile phone without following the procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) amounted to a violation of her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution

A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta noted that section 185 mandates an investigating officer to record in writing, in the case-diary, as to why the search is necessary, also to record (both audio and video) the entire search etc.

Magistrate Can Invoke BNSS Search Provision To Recover Child Forcibly Taken Away By Father: Bombay High Court

Case Title: SSNA vs SAAR (Criminal Application 213 of 2026)

The Bombay High Court has held that a Magistrate can invoke the search provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to recover a child allegedly taken away by his father from the mother's custody by force.

Upholding orders passed by a Magistrate in Malegaon directing the police to search the father's residence and subsequently restore the custody of the three-year-old child to the mother, the Court found that the Sessions Court had erred in interfering with those directions.

Hearing Accused At Pre-Cognizance Stage Mandatory Under BNSS For Offences Under SEBI Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Neville Tuli v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr. [Writ Petition No. 5242 of 2025]

The Bombay High Court has held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, mandating an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance of a complaint applies to prosecutions under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The Court observed that the Special Court could not take cognizance of an offence under the SEBI Act without first hearing the accused.

Justice N. J. Jamadar was hearing a writ petition filed challenging an order of the Special Court taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act and issuing process. The prosecution arose from allegations that Osian's Art Fund failed to comply with directions issued by SEBI requiring the refund of investors' money with interest. SEBI filed a complaint against the petitioner and another director before the Special Court.

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

Police Must Strictly Comply With Arnesh Kumar Safeguards; Procedural Lapses Cannot Be Taken Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Ajay Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [W.P.(Cr.) No. 370 of 2026]

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that strict adherence to the safeguards governing arrest and remand, particularly the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, is of paramount importance and that procedural lapses by police officials cannot be treated casually. [2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 81]

The Court observed that every police officer is under a statutory obligation to comply with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the law declared by the Supreme Court, and that accountability must be ensured to prevent recurrence of such lapses.

Chhattisgarh High Court Awards ₹25,000 Compensation For Illegal Detention After Man Kept In Jail Despite Furnishing Court-Ordered Bail Bond

Case Title: Ashraf Beg v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPCR No. 564 of 2025]

The Chhattisgarh High Court has awarded ₹25,000 as compensation to a man whose right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated after he was kept in judicial custody despite furnishing the bail bond directed by the Executive Magistrate. The Court observed that a person arrested merely on suspicion, against whom no cognizable or non-bailable offence is made out, cannot be remanded to judicial custody and ought to be released on bail in accordance with law.

The Court held that the power of arrest under Section 35 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 41 CrPC) is preventive in nature and cannot be exercised routinely. It observed that the State had failed to produce any material demonstrating that the petitioner had committed a cognizable offence, and therefore there was no justification for insisting upon security for his release.

The Court further held that a Magistrate cannot mechanically remand a person to custody and must satisfy himself that a non-bailable offence appears to have been committed and that custodial detention is genuinely necessary. It emphasised that liberty under Article 21 includes freedom from humiliation, unnecessary arrest and arbitrary detention.

DELHI HIGH COURT

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking FIR Against Amit Shah, Rahul Gandhi For Not Notifying BNS 'Hit-And-Run' Provision

Title: Ritu Gauba v. Commissioner of Police

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking registration of FIR against all MPs, as well as Union Minister Amit Shah and LoP Rahul Gandhi for failing to notify Section 106(2) of Bharitiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 653]

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the PIL filed by lawyer Ritu Gauba who appeared in person.

GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Sessions Court 'Prima Facie' Exceeded Bail Jurisdiction By Directing Executive Action On Alleged Land Grabbing, Mob Violence: Gujarat High Court

Case title: SATRABHAI RAMABHAI DAMOR v/s STATE OF GUJARAT

The Gujarat High Court has summoned the Law Officers branch, observing that the sessions court had "prima facie exceeded its jurisdiction" under S.483 BNSS which relates to bail, by referring its order to various state authorities for implementation of Supreme Court's directions in mob lynching cases. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 186]

Notably the sessions court had denied bail to three accused of assaulting forest and police personnel, observing that it was a land grabbing offence and the District Magistrate needs to take appropriate action.

Noting that "prima facie exceeding of jurisdiction" by the Sessions Court under Section 483 BNSS "ought not to be overlooked" by the High Court, it thus asked the Law Officers branch to remain present through its advocate on the next date of hearing.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT

Dismissal Of Complaint Before Cognisance Is Not Acquittal, Can Be Challenged Under Section 528 BNSS: J&K&L High Court

Case: Abdul Razzak Beigh v. Altaf Ahmad Khan

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has clarified the distinction between pre-cognizance dismissal of a criminal complaint and dismissal after issuance of process, holding that only the latter attracts Section 279 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and results in an acquittal appealable under Section 419(4).

The court went on to explain that where a complaint is dismissed before cognizance is taken or before process is issued, the order does not amount to an acquittal and can be assailed by invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, or through revision where failure of justice is demonstrated.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

'Police Can't Be Doctoring': Karnataka High Court Slams State Over Notices To Women Hospital Staff In Unnatural Death Case, Stays Probe

Case No: Dr. Vinuta B. & M/s. Kids Clinic India Ltd. (Cloudnine Hospital) v. State of Karnataka & Konankunte Police Station

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday [ July 7] strongly reprimand the police for allegedly overstepping their authority while investigation into the death of a patient at Cloudnine Hospital, and stayed all proceedings against the hospital and its staff.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while hearing a petition filed by Dr. Vinuta B. and M/s. Kids Clinic India Limited (operating Cloudnine Hospital), questioned the police for issuing multiple notices to the hospital's staff, including 10 women staff, under Section 179 BNSS [Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses].

While the Court acknowledged the 'unfortunate incident' of the death of a patient, it vehemently objected to the police's approach to the UDR (Unnatural Death Report) investigation remarking that "police should not enter into doctoring”.

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Over Allegedly Anti-National Social Media Post After Woman Undertakes Not To Make Similar Posts

Case Title: Afeefa Fathima vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against a 24-year-old woman hailing from Mangaluru for her allegedly anti-national and anti-Hindu social media posts, accepting her affidavit of regret and an undertaking to exercise caution in the future.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 241]

A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Afeefa Fathima, a dietician by profession, quashing a crime from 2025 registered at the Mangaluru South Police Station for offences under Sections 196(1)(a) [creating enmity between groups via any medium] and 353(2)[ Statements Conducing to Public Mischief] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

'Investigate Murder, Not TheTweet': Karnataka High Court Stays Probe Against Law Student Booked Over Bantwal Murder Post Targeting Congress

Case Details: Kiran @ Kiran Aradhya (Law Student) v. State of Karntaka

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (July 20) stayed further investigation against a sixth-semester law student who was booked in two separate FIRs over a social media post on the murder of a young woman at the Bantwal bus stand, in which he had alleged that the Congress government would “quietly withdraw” the case against the accused.

Granting interim relief, the single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna orally observed that the focus of the authorities should be on investigating the murder rather than the student's post.

“This is not where we want to glorify or celebrate this incident. What we should do is not get sensitive about these things. Investigate into the man who hacked her to death. You are blowing this tweet out of proportion, you are giving it the colour of Section 192 of the BNS/153A of the IPC, 353(2)/505(2) of the IPC…,” the Court observed.

KERALA HIGH COURT

Does Informing Live-In Partner's Father Fulfil Police Duty To Notify Family Of Arrest? Kerala High Court Answers

Case Title: Muhashib v. State of Kerala and Anr.

The Kerala High Court recently granted bail to an NDPS accused after finding that the legal requirement to inform his relative or friend about arrest was not satisfied in the case. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 407]

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that the grounds of arrest was communicated only to the father of the applicant's live-in partner, who is a co-accused (accused No. 2) in the case. This, according to the Court, did not satisfy the legal requirement under Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

'Words Not Proper But No Intent To Hurt Religious Sentiments': MP High Court Grants Relief To Man Booked Over Remarks On Goddess Sita

Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC No-29490-2026

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a programme host accused of promoting religious enmity by reciting a couplet concerning the abduction of Goddess Sita, observing that although the choice of words may have been inappropriate, it does not prima facie indicate an intention to hurt public sentiments or create communal disharmony. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 289]

Justice Devnarayan Mishra observed:

"From the video, it is clear that the applicant/poet has clearly stated that the inmates of Lanka or women of Lanka were discussing in such a way that Mata Sita will perish whole Lanka. In the context, in which the aforesaid couplet (doha) was recited, the word selection may not be proper, but at this stage, it cannot be said that the applicant was intending to hurt the sentiments of the public or wanted to create any mischief, riot, affray or disharmony among the people on the basis of religion."

The Court was hearing an application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which penalises statements conducing to public mischief.

MP High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Buying Newborn, Says Offence Of Human Trafficking Prima Facie Not Made Out

Case Title: Rubina v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-29110-2026

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a woman accused of trafficking by buying a newborn child, observing that she had arranged the child for her daughter and therefore the ingredients of trafficking under Section 143 of the BNS were prima facie not fulfilled. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 287]

The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed:

"...daughter of the present applicant have no issues and child was arranged only for the daughter of the applicant. Accordingly, the arguments of the counsel have substance that the essential ingredients of the expression 'exploitation', as defined in Explanation 1 appended to Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are not attracted to the facts of the present case..."

MP High Court Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Police Constable Illegally Detained In Bailable Offence

Case Title: Rahul Ataria v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-11135-2025

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has awarded ₹5 lakh compensation to a police constable who was illegally detained in connection with a bailable offence, holding that the police cannot keep an accused in custody merely because they intend to produce him before a Magistrate within 24 hours. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 305]

The bench highlighted that Section 47(2) of BNSS mandates that an arrested person in a bailable offence must be informed of his right to be released on bail, as the purpose of the provision is to safeguard personal liberty and therefore the statutory obligation under the said provision is mandatory in nature.

"Section 47(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita unequivocally provides that when a person is arrested for a bailable offence, the arresting officer shall inform him that he is entitled to be released on bail. The statutory obligation is mandatory in nature and is intended to safeguard personal liberty. The purpose of the provision would stand defeated if an accused in a bailable offence is unnecessarily confined in police custody and produced before the Magistrate only after prolonged detention".

MADRAS HIGH COURT

S.48 BNSS Doesn't Mandate Written Intimation Of Arrest To Relatives, Intimation Through Phone Call/ SMS Valid: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dhetchinamoorthy @ Dakshinamoorthy v State

The Madras High Court recently held that section 48 of the BNSS does not mandate that the intimation of arrest be given in writing to the relatives of the arrested persons. The court held that an intimation through phone call or SMS is a valid intimation. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337]

Justice R Vijayakumar thus refused to interfere with the remand of four persons arrested in an NDPS case on the ground that the intimation was not given to the relatives in writing.

The court noted that the relatives, friends and other persons nominated by the arrested persons had been informed about the arrest through SMS or phone call, based on the information provided, and there was no allegation from the relative that they were not informed.

ORISSA HIGH COURT

S.31 CrPC/ S.25 BNSS | Court Can't Order Consecutive Sentences For Offences Committed In 'Single Transaction': Orissa High Court

Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Behera v. State of Orissa

The Orissa High Court has held that a Court, while convicting and imposing punishment on an accused for commission of more than one offence, cannot order respective sentences to run consecutively if the offences are committed in a 'single transaction'.

Reiterating the Apex Court ruling in O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2014), the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh modified the consecutive sentence imposed on the petitioner and ordered it to run concurrently, since the offences were committed in a single transaction. It observed,

“Answering the reference as to whether substantive sentences can be directed to run concurrently or consecutively in the light of Section 31 of the Cr.P.C., the Apex Court laid down the law that when the prosecution is based on a single transaction which constitutes two or more offences, the sentences are to run concurrently…However, being oblivious to the salutary principles of sentencing referred to hereinabove, the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court directed the sentences to run consecutively.”

Magistrate Must Disclose 'Substance Of Information' While Issuing S.126 BNSS Notice To Execute Bond For Keeping Peace: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Sumitra Dhal & Ors. v. State of Odisha

The Orissa High Court has ruled that an Executive Magistrate is duty-bound to disclose the 'substance of information' received by him while issuing show-cause notice to a person to explain why he should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping peace under Section 126 BNSS. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 76]

Stressing on the importance of the aforesaid critical legal requirement as mandated under Section 130 of the BNSS, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held–

“Section 130 of the BNSS mandates that before calling upon a person to show cause under Section 126, the Magistrate shall set forth in writing the substance of the information received. The requirement is intended to disclose the basic grounds on which preventive action is considered necessary…Although the provision speaks of the “substance of the information”, it does not mean that the order should not be comprehensive. The order need not reproduce the information verbatim; however, it must give proper notice of what moved the Magistrate to initiate the proceedings.”

PATNA HIGH COURT

Pressuring Spouse To Sign Divorce & Child Custody Papers Doesn't Constitute 'Cruelty': Patna High Court

Case Title: Raghvendra Kishore Singh @ Raghvendra Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr.

The Patna High Court has held that merely pressuring a spouse to sign divorce and child custody papers during matrimonial negotiations does not constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court observed that such conduct neither amounts to harassment for an unlawful demand of property nor to wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury, as contemplated under Section 86 of the BNS.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar quashed an FIR registered against a husband under various provisions of the BNS, holding that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted at face value, the case fell within the categories warranting quashing laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Out Of Devotion Not Offence Under S.298 BNS: P&H High Court Quashes FIR

Title: Ranjanni Gaur v. State of Punjab and another

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by dressing up her pet dog as Lord Krishna and posting its images on WhatsApp, holding that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) were not made out. [2025 LiveLaw (PH) 218]

The Court further added that the gesture made by the petitioner by dressing up her pet in the customary attire of Janamashtami seems to have been done in good faith and without malice. The posting of the photo on WhatsApp appears to be out of an intention of love and for showcasing her affection.

Pre-Cognizance Hearing Of Accused U/S 223 BNSS Not Applicable To SFIO Proceedings Under Companies Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Vivo India Private Limited v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing of accused, contemplated under the first proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is not available to persons proposed to be arrayed as accused in prosecutions instituted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Companies Act, 2013. [2025 LiveLaw (PH) 224]

Justice Subhas Mehla noted,

"...prosecution complaints instituted by the SFIO pursuant to investigation under Section 212 of the Act, 2013 are not governed by the proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, and the proposed accused have no vested right to claim a pre-cognizance hearing before the Special Court."

TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Telangana High Court Upholds Bail Cancellation After POCSO Accused Refuses DNA Test, Says It Amounts To Non-Cooperation

Case Title: Haseeb Ullah Khan v. State of Telangana

The Telangana High Court has upheld the cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a POCSO case after he refused to undergo a DNA test, holding that DNA profiling is a recognised investigative tool in sexual offence cases under Section 51 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).[2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 113]

The Court held that an accused cannot refuse such examination by invoking the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Justice K. Sujana observed:

"The request made by the Investigating Officer for the petitioner to undergo a DNA test is in accordance with law. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka is misplaced, as the said decision deals with involuntary scientific techniques such as narco-analysis, polygraph examination and brain-mapping, and not with DNA profiling under Section 51 of the BNSS."

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

Mere Smell Of Alcohol Without Blood Test Or Breathalyser Cannot Establish Drunken Driving: Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title: Amar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the smell of alcohol on the breath of an accused, without a blood test or breathalyser establishing that the alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory limit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot establish drunken driving or justify framing a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Justice Alok Mahra passed the ruling while partly allowing a criminal revision filed against an order of the Sessions Judge framing charges under Sections 105, 125(a), 125(b) and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.